iviewit rebuttal to kenneth rubenstein at proskauer rose / mpegla bar complaint

319
10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437T (561) 364-4240www.iviewit.com IVIEWIT HOLDINGS, INC. P. Stephen Lamont Chief Executive Officer Direct Dial: 914-217-0038 July 2, 2003 By Overnight Delivery Thomas J. Cahill, Esq. Chief Counsel First Judicial Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee 61 Broadway, 2nd Floor New York, New York 10006 Re: Rebuttal of Kenneth Rubenstein, Esq. Response to Complaint of Iviewit Holdings, Inc., Docket 2003.0531 Dear Mr. Cahill: By way of introduction, I am Chief Executive Officer (Acting) of Iviewit Holdings, Inc. and its subsidiaries (collectively, “Company”) with a background of which the Company invites you to view at http://www.iviewit.com/management.htm , and I write to rebut all those material feints, denials, and, therefore, inconsistencies in the response of Kenneth Rubenstein, Esq. (“Respondent”) to the Company’s New York Bar Complaint of February 26 (“Complaint”). Moreover, the facts of the Complaint find Respondent so uncloaked that he resorts to disingenuously traversing from tall tales of retaliation to some irrelevant litigation, to stories of a “failed dotcom company looking for someone to blame,” and even to the personal attacks on the founder and principal inventor of the Company, whose passion for his inventions confounds the mind of Respondent whose personal, financial, and other ambitions rise above all, to the detriment of his clients. Furthermore, Respondent continues this transparent discourse and all the while maintaining “The only thing I did for Iviewit is I referred them to another patent lawyer,” 1 which the Company shall incite in the minds of First Judicial Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee 1 Deposition of Kenneth Rubenstein at 23, Proskauer Rose LLP v. Iviewit.com, Inc. et. al. Case No. CA 01- 04671 AB (Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida filed May 2, 2001), attached herein as Exhibit A .

Upload: eliot-bernstein

Post on 05-Mar-2015

52 views

Category:

Documents


2 download

DESCRIPTION

IVIEWIT HOLDINGS, INC.P. Stephen Lamont Chief Executive Officer Direct Dial: 914-217-0038July 2, 2003By Overnight Delivery Thomas J. Cahill, Esq. Chief Counsel First Judicial Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee 61 Broadway, 2nd Floor New York, New York 10006 Re: Rebuttal of Kenneth Rubenstein, Esq. Response to Complaint of Iviewit Holdings, Inc., Docket 2003.0531Dear Mr. Cahill: By way of introduction, I am Chief Executive Officer (Acting) of Iviewit Holdings, Inc. and its subs

TRANSCRIPT

Page 1: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

IVIEWIT HOLDINGS, INC.

P. Stephen Lamont

Chief Executive Officer

Direct Dial: 914-217-0038

July 2, 2003

By Overnight Delivery

Thomas J. Cahill, Esq.Chief CounselFirst Judicial Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee61 Broadway, 2nd FloorNew York, New York 10006

Re: Rebuttal of Kenneth Rubenstein, Esq. Response to Complaint of Iviewit

Holdings, Inc., Docket 2003.0531

Dear Mr. Cahill:

By way of introduction, I am Chief Executive Officer (Acting) of Iviewit Holdings, Inc.and its subsidiaries (collectively, “Company”) with a background of which the Companyinvites you to view at http://www.iviewit.com/management.htm, and I write to rebut allthose material feints, denials, and, therefore, inconsistencies in the response of KennethRubenstein, Esq. (“Respondent”) to the Company’s New York Bar Complaint ofFebruary 26 (“Complaint”).

Moreover, the facts of the Complaint find Respondent so uncloaked that he resorts todisingenuously traversing from tall tales of retaliation to some irrelevant litigation, tostories of a “failed dotcom company looking for someone to blame,” and even to thepersonal attacks on the founder and principal inventor of the Company, whose passion forhis inventions confounds the mind of Respondent whose personal, financial, and otherambitions rise above all, to the detriment of his clients. Furthermore, Respondentcontinues this transparent discourse and all the while maintaining “The only thing I didfor Iviewit is I referred them to another patent lawyer,”1 which the Company shall incitein the minds of First Judicial Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee

1 Deposition of Kenneth Rubenstein at 23, Proskauer Rose LLP v. Iviewit.com, Inc. et. al. Case No. CA 01-

04671 AB (Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida filed May 2,

2001), attached herein as Exhibit A.

Page 2: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

Thomas J. Cahill, Esq.7/2/2003Page 2

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

that such a statement by Respondent could not be farther from the truth, as evidenced bySection I to Section XII, infra.

Prior to Section I to Section XII, infra, however, the first feint we need to address, and asRespondent has chosen to apprise you, is that the Company and Respondent’s employer,Proskauer Rose LLP (“Proskauer”), are parties to that certain litigation titled Proskauer

Rose LLP v. Iviewit.com, Inc. et. al., Case No. CA 01-04671 AB (Circuit Court of the

15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida filed May 2, 2001)

(“Litigation”) that, as Respondent is aware, yet prefaces and attributes the Complaint tosaid Litigation, bears not one iota of relevance to the specific allegations contained in theCompany’s Complaint.

Second, another important feint to correct, and wherein Respondent hopes that FirstJudicial Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee fails to see the forest from thetrees, is that the Company is not now nor has ever been a so called “dotcom” company,but rather is a designer and developer of video scaling and imaging technologies where,in combination and among other things, said technologies have the capability of “panningand zooming” on any image or any image within a video without degradation to thequality of that image (where degradation is termed “pixelation” to those skilled in theart).

Additionally, the Company technologies are targeted to device original equipmentmanufacturers (“OEMs”) who, when individually, or in combination with other thirdparty hardware, firmware, and/or software, shall include them in OEM products such as,but not limited to, cable set top boxes, satellite set top boxes, analog-to-digital converterboxes, next generation DVD players, digital cameras, personal video recorders, andpersonal computers; alternatively the Company has the option of exclusively contributingsaid essential technologies to the multimedia patent pools known as MPEG 2 (digitalcompression according the digital television standard), MPEG 4 (another compressionstandard at a lower bit rate, and wherein interactive objects may be embedded), and DVD(“digital video disc”) player-drive-codec and the discs themselves.

Third, and most disingenuously, Respondent attempts to point to the two and one halfpercent (2.5%) interest in, an interest that Proskauer paid a nominal, par value price for,and that was supposedly in return for adoption by the MPEG 2 patent pool of theCompany’s essential inventions, the Company’s direct, 92.03% owned, subsidiary,Iviewit Technologies, Inc., that more specifically translates into a one and ninety nine onehundredths of a percent (1.99%) fully diluted interest in lower valued Class B Non-Voting shares of the Company’s direct subsidiary, as a motivation for Proskauer to seethe Company succeed, yet fails to apprise First Judicial Department DepartmentalDisciplinary Committee that in Respondent’s stewardship of the MPEG 2 patent pool,

Page 3: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

Thomas J. Cahill, Esq.7/2/2003Page 3

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

which presently generates royalties in the nine figures, according to industry observers,and that once digital television and the content therewith assumes a penetration rate inU.S. households akin to analog color television that said royalties from MPEG 2 shall riseinto the trillions of dollars, and much to the benefit of Respondent in his role as counsel,by his admission2, and to the best of the Company’s knowledge, patent evaluator, andProskauer, thereby dwarfing any potential realized gain from the nominally priced equityposition in the Company’s direct subsidiary. Clearly, by this analysis, the Companysuggests that Respondent and his author, Steven C. Krane (“Author”), continue to applytheir skills sets towards, physics and technology licensing, and legal ethics and disputeresolution, respectively, as their prospects of future careers as financial analysts havediminished as a result of this poorly attempted feint in the response of Respondent.

Fourth, and an equally poorly analyzed feint, is Respondent’s reference to a letterpresented in his deposition to that certain Litigation on November 20, 2002, wherein suchLitigation is wholly irrelevant to the Complaint, but is instructive for these purposes,seemingly attempting to engage Respondent’s services future services, but by viewing anelectronic copy and right clicking the mouse of a IBM compatible personal computer andselecting “properties” it is clear to Respondent that said letter’s date of creation was April25, 2002, which was designed as a means for which to allow Respondent to “save hissoul” by reaffirming prior statements to potential licensees, and inapposite toRespondent’s assumed intention (see Section IX Subsection A and Exhibit O – Statementof CEO Lamont).

Lastly, Mr. Cahill, and as Respondent would have you believe, this is NOT theComplaint of Eliot I. Bernstein, but of Iviewit Holdings, Inc. (a Delaware Corporation)funded in total of approximately Six Million Dollars ($6,000,000) by prominent investorsand entertainment professionals alike, including, but not limited to: Wayne Huizenga,Wayne Huizenga Jr., Alan Epstein, Esq. and Michele Mulrooney, Esq. of ArmstrongHirsch Jackoway Tyerman & Wertheimer of Los Angeles. Cal., Kenneth Anderson, CPA,Donald Kane (formerly Managing Director of Goldman Sachs), James Osterling, JamesArmstrong, Ellen DeGenres, Alan Young, Allan Shapiro (Atlas Entertainment), MitchellWelsch (Vice President of UBS Paine Webber), and Jeffrey Friedstein (Vice President ofGoldman Sachs), Caroline P. Rogers, Esq. and many others.

Furthermore, the allegations in the Complaint stem from legal reviews by Irell andManella of Beverly Hills, Cal, Blakely Sokoloff Taylor & Zafman LLP of Los Angeles,Cal., Caroline P. Rogers, Esq., the Chicago office of Greenberg Traurig LLP, Steven M.Selz, Esq., and by executives of Warner Bros., a unit of AOL Time Warner, Inc., who inthe course of discussion both at the business level and personal level have advised that

2Supra Note 1 at 22.

Page 4: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

Thomas J. Cahill, Esq.7/2/2003Page 4

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

looks can be deceiving when viewing the Company’s patent applications filed by patentcounsel under the supervision of Respondent, as the filings they viewed differ materially,and, perhaps, fraudulently, the Company alleges, from the teachings and disclosures ofthe Company’s inventors, Mr. Bernstein, Zakirul Shirajee, and Jude Rosario, and to thedetriment of the Company’s filings.

Now, with the above clarified, the Company points straight to the heart of the matters,and despite Respondent’s statements in his deposition, wherein such Litigation is whollyirrelevant to the Complaint, but is instructive for these purposes, and laughablestatements at that, the Company alleges, that include but are not limited to, “The onlything I did for Iviewit is I referred them to another patent lawyer” and “I consider thedeposition nothing but harassment, considering that I had nothing to do with thecompany3,” and his denial of making any representations to any party with regard to theCompany’s technologies4, we summarily state that from the benefit of the narrative andattached exhibits below, the Company shall incite in the minds of First JudicialDepartment Departmental Disciplinary Committee that Respondent: (I) engaged in aseries of dishonesties, appearances of untrustworthiness, conduct involving dishonesty,fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation with, and as the supervising attorney of, oneRaymond A. Joao5 who at the time of Respondent’s referral was in transition from placesunknown, but later figuratively drops out of the sky, while misrepresented as a memberof Proskauer, and as of February 1999, becomes of counsel to Meltzer, Lippe Goldstein& Schlissel LLP (“MLGS”), Respondent’s former employer, in an attempt to bury theCompany’s inventions that are a competitive threat to the multimedia patent pools ofwhich Respondent holds the position of counsel, by self admission, and, to the best of theCompany’s knowledge, patent evaluator; (II) engaged in a series of improprieties anddeceptions with a one Christopher C. Wheeler7, a Partner in the Boca Raton office ofProskauer Rose LLP (“Proskauer”) in a further attempt to deprive the Company of itstechnologies for the benefit of Respondent, Mr. Wheeler, and Proskauer by directing Mr.Wheeler to proliferate the Company’s technologies across a wide array of clients ofRespondent, Mr. Wheeler, and Proskauer, according to Non-Disclosure Agreements(“NDAs”) never enforced by Mr. Wheeler, and a true list of clients conducting saidunauthorized use is attached herein as Exhibit D; (III) by virtue of his actions in (I)

3Supra Note 1 at 12.

4Supra Note 1 at 40.

5 First Judicial Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee should be apprised of the fact that theCompany has filed, as it relates to Mr. Joao, a complaint with the New York State Bar Association whereinsuch complaint, response to said complaint, and the Company’s rebuttal are attached herein as Exhibit B.6

Supra Note 2.7 First Judicial Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee should be apprised of the fact that theCompany has similarly filed, as it relates to Mr. Wheeler, a complaint with The Florida Bar Associationwherein such complaint, response to said complaint, the Company’s rebuttal to said complaint, Mr.Wheeler’s second response, and the Company’s second rebuttal are attached herein as Exhibit C.

Page 5: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

Thomas J. Cahill, Esq.7/2/2003Page 5

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

thereby perpetrating a fraud upon the United States Patent and Trademark Office(“USPTO”) in the supervision of Mr. Joao; and (IV) by virtue of (I) through (III) all tothe detriment of the patent filings and present fortunes of the Company and itsstakeholders alike.

Accordingly, on behalf of the Company, and for ease of reference I insert the majorallegations of the Complaint within the framework of The Lawyer’s Code of ProfessionalResponsibility of the New York State Bar Association,8 cross referencing Title 22 of NewYork Codes, Rules and Regulations9 (“NYCRR”), and shall cite specific documentationin exhibits attached hereto:

I. DR 1-102 [§1200.3] Misconduct.

The Company rebuts the feints, denials, and, therefore, inconsistencies in the response ofRespondent and re-alleges that Respondent had, during the period of representation of theCompany from 1998 to mid 2001, and irrespective of at which date, and in which form,an engagement agreement was executed by and between Proskauer and the Company: (I)engaged in illegal conduct that adversely reflected on Respondent’s honesty,trustworthiness, and fitness as an attorney; (II) circumvented a Disciplinary Rule throughactions of another, Mr. Joao; (III) engaged in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit,or misrepresentation; and (IV) engaged in other conduct that adversely reflects onRespondent’s fitness as a lawyer.

Additionally, the Company, interalia, shall establish: (I) that Respondent, as the firsttechnologist to benefit from the inventions disclosures by the Company, was seen by theinventors, executive management, investors, and potential licensees, as the individualresponsible for the oversight of the Company’s patent prosecution process; (II) thatRespondent used the referral of Mr. Joao as the cloaking device to bury the Company’sinventions that are competitive threats to the multimedia patent pools, therebymaintaining Respondent’s personal financial gains, esteem, and clients from themultimedia patent pools where Respondent, by admission, holds the position as counsel,and also, to the Company’s best knowledge, patent evaluator; (III) that Respondentopined as to the novelty of the Company’s inventions to investors and potential licenseesat the same time he was directing Mr. Joao to bury the Company’s inventions inprovisional patent filings that are a competitive threat to his patent pools and directingMr. Wheeler to proliferate the Company’s technologies among clients of Respondent,Mr. Wheeler, and Proskauer without the enforcement of NDAs; and (IV) that Respondentengaged in other conduct that adversely reflects on Respondent’s fitness as a lawyer byhis unconscionable speaking of falsehoods in a recent deposition in the Litigation,wherein such litigation is wholly irrelevant to the Complaint, but is instructive for these

8 Lawyer’s Code of Professional Responsibility, New York State Bar Association (January 1, 2002)9 22 New York Code, Rules and Regulations.

Page 6: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

Thomas J. Cahill, Esq.7/2/2003Page 6

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

purposes, in which he denies, interalia: (a) knowledge of the Company, however, hasbeen named as overseer of the Company’s patent prosecution process and has beennamed as a member of the Company’s Advisory Board and has opined as to the noveltyof the Company’s inventions to investors and potential licensees alike; (b) deniesknowledge of the Company’s main inventor, Mr. Bernstein, and other inventors, althoughhe has spent many hours in disclosure sessions with the Company’s inventors; and (c) hasrefused to describe his involvement with the organization MPEG LA, LCC that throughdoctrines of respondeat superior and vicarious liability may be liable for the actions ofRespondent in other forums separate and apart from the Complaint, and where saidspeaking of falsehoods in (a) through (c) has been steadfastly repeated in Respondent’sresponse to the Complaint.

A. More specifically, Respondent, when first apprised of the Company’s technologiesstates, through Mr. Wheeler, the opinion that they are “novel” and a statement reliedupon by early investors in the Company. Moreover, through and in conjunction with Mr.Wheeler, Respondent becomes fully aware of the Company’s inventions whereby hereceives invention processes, visits the proprietary pages of the Company’s web site,receives proprietary and confidential CD-ROM’s, is, factually, in constant phone contactwith the Company’s inventors to learn the Company’s techniques, often times with Mr.Joao, and transmits examples of patents to Mr. Bernstein that point to the patentprosecution process he intends to oversee and undertake in conjunction with Mr. Joao,attached herein as Exhibit E.

Moreover, once knowledgeable about the Company’s inventions and in disclosureteleconferences with Mr. Bernstein, the Company finds Respondent muttering to himself“I missed that” and “we never thought of that” and “THIS CHANGES

EVERYTHING.” Furthermore, when Respondent’s muttering of “I missed that” and“we never thought of that,” the Company alleges that Respondent is incensed at thethought of a self taught video engineer, the likes of Mr. Bernstein and his fellowinventors, formulating video and imaging processes that trump the preeminent patentpools formed by Respondent, the patents of which were evaluated by Respondent, theorganization of which is counseled by Respondent, and the licensee and licensor list ofwhich Respondent counts as some of his clients as described at the URL athttp://www.proskauer.com/lawyers_at_proskauer/atty_data/4747, where his client list includes someof those companies listed in the MPEG 2 patent pool, and highlighted as attached hereinas Exhibit F.

Furthermore, Respondent is seen pointed to by former company executive management,and named in multiple Company business plans authored by and reviewed and billed forby Mr. Wheeler and delivered to Respondent’s for his review, and by potential licensepartners as the “go to” individual regarding information and opinions on the Company’sinventions examples of which are attached herein as Exhibit G.

Page 7: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

Thomas J. Cahill, Esq.7/2/2003Page 7

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

B. More importantly, the Company points to his alleged mutterings that “THIS

CHANGES EVERYTHING,” wherein “EVERYTHING” allegedly refers toRespondent’s formation, patent evaluation, and counseling to the organization MPEGLA, LLC that coordinates the MPEG 2 and MPEG 4 patent pools of which theCompany’s inventions are a competitive threat.

Factually, the Company has knowledge that, as well as Respondent holding the positionof counsel by his own admission, Respondent holds the position of patent evaluator, andwherein Respondent: (a) may personally profit as said patent evaluator by, to the best ofthe Company’s knowledge, receiving a fee of Eight Thousand Five Hundred Dollars($8,500) per patent review10; (b) wherein Mr. Rubenstein counts as among his clientscertain licensors and licensees of said patent pools, and receives remuneration as thebilling Partner in representation of those clients by Respondent and Proskauer; and (c)wherein it is in the best personal, financial interest of Respondent to direct and engagewith Mr. Joao and Mr. Wheeler in said series of dishonesties, appearances ofuntrustworthiness, conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, and misrepresentation toremove the competitive threat of the Company’s inventions to said multimedia patentpools, thereby securing his own personal gain and, perhaps, that of Proskauer.

Lastly, given this time line of events concerning Respondent, who is desirous ofmaintaining Respondent’s personal financial gains, esteem, probable gains toRespondent’s employer, Proskauer, other gains from representing a soon to be trilliondollar technology in MPEG 2, and clients from the multimedia patent pools and hasrecruited Mr. Joao to assist, the Company alleges, in the burying the Company’sinventions, it becomes strikingly unusual that Respondent and other former members andassociates of MLGS who at the time just transferred with Respondent to Proskauer, passon the patent prosecution work of the Company for their new employer, Proskauer, and

10 First Judicial Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee should be apprised of the fact that: (i)said patent pool known as MPEG 2 contains, as of even date above, approximately Five Hundred andEighty (580) essential patents, and contains some eighty to ninety percent (80% to 90%), according toindustry observers, of the essential patents relevant to this pool; (ii) that said patent pool known as DVDcontains, as of even date above, approximately Six Hundred and Seventy Five (675) essential patents, andthe Company has no knowledge as to what percentage of the essential patents are contained relevant to thispool; and (iii) that said patent pool known as MPEG 4 presently contains approximately One Hundred(100) essential patents, and by the Company’s estimation contains approximately twenty five percent(25%) of the essential patents relevant to this pool; (iv) that by virtue of (i) and (ii) herein, Respondentmay have personally profited, absent any sharing with his former or present employers or in the operatingbudget of MPEG LA, LLC, in the amount of approximately Five Million Seven Hundred Thousand Dollars($5,700,000); and (v) that by virtue of (iii) herein, Respondent may stand, from this activity alone, topersonally profit in the future, absent any sharing with his present employer or the operating budget ofMPEG LA, LLC, of approximately Two Million Five Hundred Thousand Dollars ($2,500,000), as well asprofiting, the Company alleges, in other ways from the burying of the Company’s technologies, orresurrecting them with a cumulative present value of up to Seventeen Billion Dollars ($17,000,000,000)over twenty (20) year patent life.

Page 8: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

Thomas J. Cahill, Esq.7/2/2003Page 8

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

refer it back to their former law firm, MLGS, and an attorney, in one Mr. Joao, whoseemingly drops out of the sky and has no connection to the former attorneys, or doRespondent and Mr. Joao have a former connection? Moreover, and at this point in thetime line, Respondent has already opined that the Company’s inventions are “novel” andessential to MPEG, as well as, in the Company’s opinion, a competitive threat to MPEG,which lends great support to the Company’s contentions that Respondent saw thepersonal financial gains, esteem, and current and prospective clients from the multimediapatent pools as needs to bury the Company’s inventions.

Finally, it is proximate to this series of events and circumstances that the Company re-alleges that Respondent, desirous of maintaining Respondent’s personal, financial gains,esteem, and clients from the multimedia patent pools and has recruited Mr. Joao to assist,the Company alleges, in the burying the Company’s inventions, engaged, with and whileacting as the overseer of Mr. Joao, in conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, deceit, andmisrepresentation, wherein Respondent who has recruited Mr. Joao to assist, theCompany alleges, in the burying the Company’s inventions by missing critical elementsin the provisional patent applications, as attached herein as Exhibit H; Mr. Bernstein, theother inventors, former President & COO Brian G. Utley , and representatives of the“seed” investor, an affiliate of Huizenga Holdings, Inc. find: (I) flaws in patentapplications; (II) material differences between what was disclosed and contained in filedpatent applications, as further described in Exhibit H by the letter of Mr. Utley; and (III)patent applications that do not include all the inventors11.

C. Still further, the opinions of Respondent are instrumental in the “seed” funding of theCompany by an affiliate of Huizenga Holdings, Inc. (Wayne Huizenga of Blockbusterfame) wherein Respondent interfaces with the Huizenga investment professionals, andMr. Wheeler reiterates Respondent’s opinions regarding the Company’s inventions.Similarly, Mr. Wheeler relays Respondent’s opinions to Goldman Sachs Group, Inc.,Gruntal & Co. (presently a unit of Raymond James Financial Inc.), and a whole host ofother investors and potential license partners now conducting the unauthorized use of theCompany technologies under NDAs not enforced by Respondent and Mr. Wheeler.

Lastly, to investors in the Company, it was the representation of Respondent and Mr.Wheeler that Respondent’s patent pools and other interested clients of Respondent andMr. Wheeler would license the Company’s technologies; it was also represented thatRespondent made positive decisions on the essentiality of the Company’s patents pendingto potential licensees of the Company, in particular with respect to Warner Bros., and hisclose association with a one Gregory B. Thagard, an individual who is the named, or one

11 35 U.S.C. Sec. 116 (1985).

Page 9: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

Thomas J. Cahill, Esq.7/2/2003Page 9

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

of the named inventor(s) for approximately thirteen patents in the DVD patent pool12 andwas associated with Respondent in the Massachusetts Institute of Technology’s MediaLab; instances of investor and licensee representations are more particularly described byExhibit I.

D. Lastly, through his many denials and, factual outright disavowing numerous items inhis deposition with regard to the Litigation, wherein such Litigation is wholly irrelevantto the Complaint, but is instructive for these purposes, Respondent outright disavows:

1. any knowledge whatsoever of the Company;13

2. any knowledge whatsoever of Mr. Bernstein and the other true inventors;14

3. any knowledge whatsoever of techniques known as pan and zoom technology;15

4. and through his refusal to answer questions regarding the allegedly vicariouslyliable MPEG LA, LLC16 amongst others;

5. his charge that the deposition was harassment in that he had nothing to do withthe Company;17

6. his steadfast denial of technology known as scaled video;18

7. his claim as to never opining on the Company’s technology;19

8. his denial of ever having been involved in meetings concerning the Company;20

9. his denial of ever having any discussion with anyone at Proskauer concerning theCompany’s technology;21

10. his admission of not keeping notes or records of his conversations to Mr.Wheeler;22

11. his acknowledgement of never having billed the Company, though his nameappears more than a dozen times, absent those billings that may have purposelyremoved, in billings from Mr. Wheeler’s office;23

12. his denial of making any representations to any party with regard to theCompany’s technologies;24

13. his stunning reversal of his possible conversation with third parties regarding the

12 As to conflicts of interest, it should be similarly noted that the DVD patent pool also benefits from theCompany’s technologies, and that Respondent fails to disclose same with respect to his discussions withMr. Thagard that the Company was apprised by Mr. Thagard.13

Supra Note 1 at 10-11.14

Supra Note 1 at 11.15

Supra Note 1 at 10.16

Supra Note 1 at 12.17

Supra Note 3.18

Supra Note 1 at 22-23.19

Supra Note 1 at 23.20

Supra Note 1 at 2421

Supra Note 1 at 26.22

Supra Note 1 at 43.23

Supra Note 1 at 43.24

Supra Note 4.

Page 10: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

Thomas J. Cahill, Esq.7/2/2003Page 10

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

Company’s technologies;25 and,14. and his lack of knowledge as to why his name appears in an electronic mail

message to a member of AOL Time Warner’s investment team, wherein thatmessage states that Respondent opined on the Company’s technologies.26

Accordingly, by subparagraphs 1 to 14 above, Respondent has engaged in other conductthat adversely reflects on Respondent’s fitness as a lawyer, in light of said denials ofwhich the Company shall conclusively prove otherwise, infra.

II. DR 1-103 [§1200.4] Disclosure of Information to Authorities.

A. The Company realleges and incorporates by this reference herein, as though fully setforth, Section I Subsection A-D, inclusive. Moreover, the Company further re-allegesthat Respondent who is desirous of maintaining Respondent’s personal financial gains,esteem, probable gains to Respondent’s employer, Proskauer, other gains fromrepresenting a soon to be trillion dollar technology in MPEG 2, and clients from themultimedia patent pools and has recruited Mr. Joao to assist, the Company alleges, in theburying the Company’s inventions, possessed knowledge of a violation of DR 1-102[§1200.3] that raises a substantial question as to the honesty of Mr. Joao, Mr. Joao’strustworthiness, Mr. Joao’s fitness as a lawyer, whom Respondent has recruited to assist,the Company alleges, in the burying the Company’s invention, whereby Respondentfailed to report such knowledge to a tribunal or other authority empowered to investigateor act upon such violation.

Still further, and by Exhibit I, the Company alleges Respondent’s awareness of violationsof Mr. Joao during a meeting at Respondent’s New York office with a one StevenFilipeck, Esq. representing Huizenga Holdings, as well as others, pertaining to theCompany’s patent filings, and based on Mr. Filipeck’s review of Mr. Joao’s, under thedirection of Respondent, provisional work; Huizenga Holdings, Inc. was the initialinvestor in the Company and this meeting materially impacts future Huizengainvestments which, as a result of the faulty provisional patent applications, were neverforthcoming.

Moreover, the Company further alleges that Respondent had knowledge of a violation ofDR 1-102 [§1200.3] that raises a substantial question as to the honesty of a one WilliamJ. Dick, Esq. of Foley & Lardner, Milwaukee, Wis. and Mr. Utley, whereby Respondentsimilarly failed to report such knowledge to a tribunal or other authority empowered toinvestigate or act upon such violation.

25Supra Note 1 at 75.

26Supra Note 1 at 87.

Page 11: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

Thomas J. Cahill, Esq.7/2/2003Page 11

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

Still further, the Company further alleges that Respondent had knowledge of a violationof DR 1-102 [§1200.3] that raises a substantial question as to the honesty of Mr. Wheeler,whereby Respondent similarly failed to report such knowledge to a tribunal or otherauthority empowered to investigate or act upon such violation.

Lastly, the Company further alleges that Respondent may have had knowledge of factorsthat may raise a substantial question as to the honesty of a one H. Hickman Powell III andStephen J. Warner, Managing Director and Co-Founder and Chairman, respectively, ofone Crossbow Ventures, Inc. of West Palm Beach, Fla., an affiliate of which was theCompany’s lead investor, whereby Respondent similarly failed to report such knowledgeto a tribunal or other authority empowered to investigate or act upon such violation.

Moreover, with respect to Messrs. Powell and Warner and Crossbow, in late 1999, theywere introduced to the Company by Mr. Wheeler, who had indicated to the Company thatthey were interested in an equity investment in the Company once they had conducted athorough due diligence review of the Company’s intellectual property and provisionalpatent filings with a independent third party patent counsel, and in conjunction withRespondent and Mr. Joao. Clearly, as Crossbow proceeded to invest a total of FourMillion Dollars consisting of One Million Eight Hundred Thousand Dollars ($1,800,000)in convertible preferred stock (January 2000), One Million Two Hundred ThousandDollars ($1,200,000) in unsecured notes (December 2000), and Eight Hundred ThousandDollars ($800,000) in secured notes27 (May to September 2001) in the Company, saidindependent intellectual property review passed with flying colors, but what strikes theCompany as unusual is that the independent intellectual property review by Crossbow inconjunction with Respondent and Mr. Joao, is in diametric opposition to the review ofFoley & Lardner, and in diametric opposition to the review of the Company’s presentpatent prosecution counsel of Blakely, Sokoloff, Taylor & Zafman LLP of Los Angeles,Cal., and lastly, is in diametric opposition to the review of the Company’s latest patentreview counsel, the Chicago office of Greenberg Traurig LLP.

Finally, following the time line of events, the termination of Mr. Utley for cause followswith a breach of contract action (since dismissed) by, among others, Mr. Utley, followedby Mr. Utley’s petition in an involuntary bankruptcy (since dismissed) against theCompany, followed by the Litigation (pending) by and between the Company andProskauer, wherein such litigation is wholly irrelevant to the Complaint, but is instructivefor these purposes, followed by the execution of Crossbow’s secured notes collateralizedby the Company’s intellectual property, followed by the halting of funding by CrossbowVentures that was far lower than the committed amount for that round, followed by ademand letter for accrued but unpaid interest by Crossbow Ventures to the Company,followed by a default notice and demand for all principal and accrued but unpaid interest

27 The secured notes, supposedly, were to protect the Company from the lawsuits of Mr. Utley andProskauer cited directly below.

Page 12: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

Thomas J. Cahill, Esq.7/2/2003Page 12

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

under the secured notes by Crossbow Ventures to the Company, and followed by a noticeof assignment of the intellectual property of the Company by Crossbow Ventures(presently the subject of dispute), followed by a transfer of the secured notes contrary tothe rules of the Securities Act of 1933, to the best of the Company’s knowledge(presently, the subject of a complaint to the United States Securities and ExchangeCommission), followed by Crossbow’s false statements to The Palm Beach Post that“[Crossbow]sold one of its companies, iviewit.com,28” and the Company finds itselfasking:

Are not all these individuals and entities the referrals of Proskauer, Mr. Wheeler,and Respondent, and introduced after Respondent has been apprised of theCompany inventions, and declaring them as ‘novel,’ and that ‘[Respondent]missed that,’ and that ‘[Respondent] never thought of that,’ and, lastlyRespondent’s statement that ‘this changes everything,’ and whereby the efforts ofa preeminent multimedia patent counsel, such as Respondent or another, who isdesirous of maintaining Respondent’s personal financial gains, esteem, and clientsfrom the multimedia patent pools and has recruited Mr. Joao to assist, theCompany alleges, in the burying the Company’s inventions, may be of utilizationlater after the above said series of events rendered the Company, its inventors, thepredominance of its shareholders, absent Mr. Utley and Crossbow and Proskauer,neutralized, in the resurrection of the Company’s inventions for the benefit ofRespondent, Mr. Wheeler, Proskauer, Mr. Powell, Mr. Warner, Crossbow, andMr. Utley?

Graphically, a description of the Company’s question may be represented by thefollowing:

[The remainder of this page intentionally left blank]

28 Stephen Pounds, Venture Capital Deals Suffering, The Palm Beach Post, January 11, 2003, at 10B.

Page 13: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

Thomas J. Cahill, Esq.7/2/2003Page 13

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

Page 14: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

Thomas J. Cahill, Esq.7/2/2003Page 14

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

B. Similarly, the Company re-alleges that Respondent, who is desirous of maintainingRespondent’s personal financial gains, esteem, and clients from the multimedia patentpools and has recruited Mr. Joao to assist, the Company alleges, in the burying theCompany’s inventions possessed knowledge or evidence, not protected as a confidence orsecret, concerning Mr. Joao, without revealing such knowledge or evidence to the UnitedStates Patent and Trademark Office (“USPTO”) and other authorities empowered toinvestigate or act upon the irresponsible conduct of Mr. Joao.

C. Moreover, the Company further alleges that Respondent had knowledge of a violationof DR 1-102 [§1200.3] that raises a substantial question as to the honesty of ones StevenBecker and Douglas Boehm of Foley & Lardner and, whereby Respondent similarlyfailed to report such knowledge to a tribunal or other authority empowered to investigateor act upon such violation.

III. DR 1-104 [§1200.5] Responsibilities of a Partner or Supervisory Lawyer and

Subordinate Lawyers.

A. The Company re-alleges and incorporates by this reference herein, as though fully setforth, Section I Subsection A-D, and Section II Subsection A-C, inclusive. Morespecifically, the Company re-alleges that Respondent, who is desirous of maintainingRespondent’s personal financial gains, esteem, and clients from the multimedia patentpools and has recruited Mr. Joao to assist, the Company alleges, in the burying theCompany’s inventions, is responsible for a violation of the Disciplinary Rules by Mr.Joao whereby: (I) Respondent ordered and directed the irresponsible misconduct of Mr.Joao in burying the Company’s technologies, and, with full knowledge of Mr. Joao’sspecific misconduct, ratified said misconduct; (II) Respondent ordered and directed, inconjunction with Mr. Wheeler, the irresponsible misconduct of subsequent patent counselMr. Dick, a one Steven Becker, a one Douglas Boehm all of Foley & Lardner, and Mr.Utley in continuing to bury the Company’s technologies, and, with full knowledge oftheir specific misconduct, ratified said misconduct; and (III) Respondent had supervisoryauthority over these individuals and knew of such misconduct that Respondent, ordered,directed, and ratified, and in the exercise of reasonable management and supervisoryauthority where Respondent knowing of said misconduct failed to take remedial action ata time when the consequences of their misconduct could be or could have been avoidedor mitigated29.

B. Lastly, and aside from the fact that Respondent ordered and directed the irresponsiblemisconduct of Mr. Joao in burying the Company’s technologies, and, with full

29 Much in the same way that, in other forums, the doctrines of respondeat superior and vicarious liabilitywould impinge liability upon Respondent for the wanton acts of Mr. Joao, and wherein the scope of Mr.Joao’s employment indicates a principal-agent relationship by and between Respondent and Mr. Joao.

Page 15: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

Thomas J. Cahill, Esq.7/2/2003Page 15

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

knowledge of Mr. Joao’s specific misconduct, ratified said misconduct, Respondent wasnegligible in the referral to Mr. Joao in that Mr. Joao presently has numerous patentsissued and patent applications pending since meeting the inventors, nearly eighty (80) intotal, and where these inventions concern those allegedly learned through his engagementwith the Company, the royalties, if measured along the lines of the MPEG 2 patent pool,can represent upwards of, if not more than, Twelve Million Dollars ($12,000,000) perannum; similarly, Respondent was negligent in Proskauer’s referral of Foley & Lardner,whereby the lead counsel to the Company, Mr. Dick, was previously involved in allegedintellectual property malfeasances with Mr. Utley, and considering the particular patentapplications wrongly written into Mr. Utley as the sole inventor, and sent to Mr. Utley’shome, and without Mr. Utley assigning said inventions to the Company, and where Foley& Lardner had full knowledge of Mr. Utley’s inability to invent said technologies, theroyalties flowing from these nearly misappropriated inventions might approach more thanOne Billion Dollars ($1,000,000,000) annually.

IV. DR 1-107 [1200.5-c] Contractual Relationships Between Lawyers and

Nonlegal Professionals

A. The Company re-alleges and incorporates by this reference herein, as though fully setforth, Section I Subsection A-D, Section II Subsection A-C, and Section III SubsectionA, inclusive. Moreover, the Company further re-alleges that Respondent’s practice oflaw during his representation of the Company lacked the essential tradition of completeindependence and uncompromised loyalty to the Company as a result of Respondent’srepresentation as counsel and, to the best of the Company’s knowledge, patent evaluator,to the entity known as MPEG LA, LLC, or the licensor of those essential patents knownas MPEG 2 and MPEG 4, the DVD patent pool administered by DVD 6C LicensingAgency, that the Company’s technologies provide for a competitive threat, as evidencedby Exhibit J attached herein, and other clients, wherein Respondent refuses to answerquestions in his deposition with regard to the Litigation30, wherein such Litigation iswholly irrelevant to the Complaint, but is instructive for these purposes, concerningquestions pertaining to MPEG LA, LLC, as, the Company alleges, Respondent is fullyaware that the misconduct of Mr. Joao as overseen by Respondent, would rise to the levelof MPEG LA, LLC through doctrines of respondeat superior and vicarious liability,

thereby impinging upon Respondent’s personal financial gains whereby Respondent,who is desirous of maintaining Respondent’s personal financial gains, esteem, probablegains to Respondent’s employer, Proskauer, other gains from representing a soon to betrillion dollar technology in MPEG 2, and clients from the multimedia patent pools andhas recruited Mr. Joao to assist, the Company alleges, in the burying the Company’sinventions

B. Moreover, the Company re-alleges that Respondent’s representation of the Company

30Supra Note 14.

Page 16: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

Thomas J. Cahill, Esq.7/2/2003Page 16

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

lacked the tradition of complete independence and uncompromised loyalty as outlined inthis Section, Subsection A, as a result of Respondent’s simultaneous representation ofMPEG LA, LLC as well as other clients possessing overlapping interests with respect tothe Company, the Company lacked the guarantee of independent professional judgmentand undivided loyalty uncompromised by conflicts of interest in its representation byRespondent when viewing the Company’s technologies as competitive threats to thosetechnologies licensed by MPEG LA, LLC and Respondent’s personal financial gains asits counsel, and to the best of the Company’s knowledge, patent evaluator.

Lastly, as a result of this Section Subsections A and B, the Company re-alleges thatRespondent failed: (I) in his responsibility to maintain his or own independentprofessional judgment; (II) to maintain the confidences and secrets of the Company; and(III) to otherwise comply with the legal and ethical principles governing lawyers in NewYork State.

V. DR 4-101 [§1200.19] Preservation of Confidences and Secrets of a Client.

A. The Company re-alleges and incorporates by this reference herein, as though fully setforth, Section I Subsection A-D, Section II Subsection A-C, Section III Subsection A,and Section IV Subsection A-C, inclusive. Wherein, “confidence” refers to informationprotected by the attorney-client privilege under applicable law, and “secret” refers toother information gained in the professional relationship that the Company had requestedbe held inviolate and the disclosure of which would likely be detrimental to theCompany, the Company further re-alleges that Respondent (I) used the confidences andtrade secrets of the Company to the disadvantage of the Company; (II) revealed, by usingfor Respondent’s own gain, esteem, probable gains to Respondent’s employer, Proskauer,other gains from representing a soon to be trillion dollar technology in MPEG 2, andclients from the multimedia patent pools and has recruited Mr. Joao to assist, theCompany alleges, in the burying the Company’s inventions, confidences and trade secretsof the Company, to the disadvantage of the Company; and (III) Respondent failed toexercise reasonable care to prevent his clients from disclosing and using the confidencesand trade secrets of the Company.

More specifically, the Company re-alleges that Respondent revealed confidences andtrade secrets of the Company to the disadvantage of the Company as evidenced by thebillings of Proskauer wherein Respondent is named numerous times and has participatedin numerous hours of billings by Proskauer, attached herein as Exhibit K. Furthermore,in his response, Respondent points to the fact that he has not billed for one hour of work31

in representation of the Company, whereby by Exhibit K, the Company finds itself asking“Does Respondent work for free?” and answers by replying “No, but only when

31 Kenneth Rubenstein, Response to Complaint of Eliot Bernstein Against Kenneth Rubenstein, FirstJudicial Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee Docket 2003.0531 5 (April 11, 2003).

Page 17: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

Thomas J. Cahill, Esq.7/2/2003Page 17

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

Respondent, who is desirous of maintaining Respondent’s personal financial gains,esteem, probable gains to Respondent’s employer, Proskauer, other gains fromrepresenting a soon to be trillion dollar technology in MPEG 2, and clients from themultimedia patent pools and has recruited Mr. Joao to assist, the Company alleges, in theburying the Company’s inventions, and perhaps the facts of the matter, cross-currently,see Mr. Utley, Mr. Wheeler, and Crossbow preparing for burying the Company itself, asa means to cloak his involvement in the burying of the Company’s inventions.”Moreover, it should be similarly noted with respect to the billings of Proskauer that theCompany further alleges that Proskauer’s early bills bear eerie evidence of possibletampering, and wherein Respondent’s name and patent discussion entries may have beenattempted to be removed in an effort to exculpate Respondent.

Furthermore, the Company re-alleges that Respondent revealed, by using forRespondent’s own gain, confidences and trade secrets of the Company, to thedisadvantage of the Company according to the same analysis in this Section, SubsectionA.

B. Lastly, the Company re-alleges that Respondent failed to exercise reasonable care toprevent his clients from disclosing and using the confidences and trade secrets of theCompany as evidenced by the URL at http://trailers.warnerbros.com/web/category.jsp?id=action,whereby on the website of Warner Bros, a client of Respondent as evidenced by Mr.Wheeler’s second response32 to the Company’s Complaint against Mr. Wheeler, a viewerwho selects an action trailer and choosing Windows Media Player at a connection speedof 300k and when observing the trailer and right clicking the viewer’s personal computermouse and choosing the option “statistics” and then choosing the option ”advanced,” thequality of video seen at the specified bit rate and connection speed that deliver twenty(24) to thirty (30) full screen frames per second (termed “full frame rates” to those skilledin the art) is mathematically impossible to deliver other than by use of the Company’sinventions, as corroborated by the letter of David Colter, former Vice President ofAdvanced Technology of Warner Bros., and all attached herein as Exhibit L.

VI. DR 5-101 [§1200.20] Conflicts of Interest - Lawyer’s Own Interests

A. The Company re-alleges and incorporates by this reference herein, as though fully setforth, Section I Subsection A-D, Section II Subsection A-C, Section III Subsection A,Section IV Subsection A-C, and Section V Subsection A-D, inclusive. Moreover, theCompany further re-alleges that Respondent, who is desirous of maintainingRespondent’s personal financial gains, esteem, probable gains to Respondent’s employer,Proskauer, other gains from representing a soon to be trillion dollar technology in MPEG2, and clients from the multimedia patent pools and has recruited Mr. Joao to assist, the

32 Christopher Wheeler, Complaint of Eliot Bernstein Against Christopher Wheeler, The Florida Bar FileNo. 2003-51, 109 (15C) 5 (May 23, 2003).

Page 18: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

Thomas J. Cahill, Esq.7/2/2003Page 18

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

Company alleges, in the burying the Company’s inventions, and perhaps the facts of thematter, cross-currently, see Mr. Utley, Mr. Wheeler, and Crossbow preparing for buryingthe Company itself, continued his employment by MPEG LA, LLC, and whereby saidemployment materially affected Respondent’s judgment to the detriment of the Companyas a result of Respondent’s own financial, business, property, and personal interests, andwhereby the Company gave no consent to the representation in light of the implicationsof the Respondent’s interest.

Furthermore, by this violation of DR 5-101, it becomes more apparent when viewed interms of that neither Respondent nor Mr. Wheeler33 are cognizant of whether Proskauerconducted a no conflict of interest verification. Still further, the Company further allegesthat Respondent, Mr. Wheeler, and Mr. Joao were in receipt of proprietary andconfidential Company information without the benefit of a retainer agreement34 or noconflict of interest verification, and whereby a no conflict of interest verification wasconducted approximately twelve months after the first technology disclosures by theCompany to Mr. Wheeler, Respondent, and Mr. Joao, as described in Exhibit F, supra.

VII. DR 5-105 [§1200.24] Conflict of Interest; Simultaneous Representation.

A. The Company re-alleges and incorporates by this reference herein, as though fully setforth, Section I Subsection A-D, Section II Subsection A-C, Section III Subsection A,Section IV Subsection A-C, Section V Subsection A-D, and Section VI Subsection A,inclusive. Moreover, the Company further alleges that Respondent, who is desirous ofmaintaining Respondent’s personal financial gains, esteem, probable gains toRespondent’s employer, Proskauer, other gains from representing a soon to be trilliondollar technology in MPEG 2, and clients from the multimedia patent pools and hasrecruited Mr. Joao to assist, the Company alleges, in the burying the Company’sinventions, and perhaps the facts of the matter, cross-currently, see Mr. Utley, Mr.Wheeler, and Crossbow preparing for burying the Company itself, failed to decline thecontinued proffered employment by MPEG LA, LLC and his other clients, and that as aresult of Respondent’s failure to decline said employment, Respondent’s exercise ofindependent professional judgment on behalf of the Company was adversely affected byRespondent’s continuation of said proffered employment by, including but not limited to,MPEG LA, LLC, and that it was likely to involve Respondent in representing differinginterests.

B. Furthermore, the Company re-alleges that Respondent continued the said multiple

33 Deposition of Christopher Wheeler at 10-12, Proskauer Rose LLP v. Iviewit.com, Inc. et. al. Case No.CA 01-04671 AB (Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida filedMay 2, 2001).34 While a September 1999 retainer agreement appears to have been executed, the Company does not attestto its validity as it appears a private document between Mr. Wheeler and Mr. Utley and was executednearly one year after patent disclosures had begun.

Page 19: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

Thomas J. Cahill, Esq.7/2/2003Page 19

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

employment by both, including but not limited to, MPEG LA, LLC and the Companywhen Respondent’s exercise of independent professional judgment on behalf of theCompany was adversely affected by the Respondent’s representation of, including but notlimited to, MPEG LA, LLC, and that it resulted in Respondent representing differinginterests with material conflicts across his client roster, Proskauer’s clients under NDA,the multimedia patent pools in general, and MPEG 2 in particular, that has a potential togenerate royalties in the trillions of dollars at the time in which digital television is thequintessential entertainment client in end users viewing areas. Moreover, Respondent, inhis deposition with regard to the Litigation, wherein such Litigation is wholly irrelevantto the Complaint, but is instructive for these purposes, states his inability to recall hisfinancial package35 as well as his date of employment36 with Proskauer, which, theCompany alleges, reveals Respondent’s motives, when viewed in terms of his desire tomaintain Respondent’s personal financial gains, esteem, probable gains to Respondent’semployer, Proskauer, other gains from representing a soon to be trillion dollar technologyin MPEG 2, and clients from the multimedia patent pools and has recruited Mr. Joao toassist, the Company alleges, in the burying the Company’s inventions and perhaps thefacts of the matter, cross-currently, see Mr. Utley, Mr. Wheeler, and Crossbow preparingfor burying the Company itself, and as evidenced by Exhibit M attached herein37.Additionally, also presented in Exhibit M are: (I) a compact disc recording of a tapedconversation by and between Mr. Bernstein and inventor Shirajee that points to theabsolute knowledge by Respondent, Mr. Joao, and Mr. Wheeler as to the Company’s trueinventors; (II) the statement of former Chairman of the Company’s Board of Directors,Simon Bernstein; and (III) the statements of other former employees, shareholders,investors and clients all possessing knowledge of the alleged malfeasances andmisfeasances of Respondent, Mr. Joao, and Mr. Wheeler.

The Company re-alleges that Respondent’s employer, Proskauer, failed to maintainrecords of Respondent’s outside interests with, including but not limited to, MPEG LA,LLC, and similarly failed to implement a system by which the proposed engagement withthe Company was checked against Respondent’s employment by, including but notlimited to, MPEG LA, LLC, and whereby the case of representation of the Company wasa substantial factor in causing a violation of DR 5-105 by Respondent, who is desirous ofmaintaining Respondent’s personal financial gains, esteem, probable gains to

35Supra Note 1 at 8.

36Supra Note 1 at 6.

37 The Company requests First Judicial Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee to: (I) directRespondent and Proskauer to reveal the total financial compensation of Respondent, including but notlimited to, base salary from Proskauer, bonus, profit sharing, and sharing in any of Respondent’scompensation as patent evaluator; (II) the timeline pertaining to Respondent’s employment by MLGS andProskauer; (III) submission for review by the Company all files of Proskauer; (IV) the prior relationshipbetween Respondent and Mr. Joao; and (V) matching exhibits herein due to prospect of altering by“hackings” of the Company’s information systems. Such revelations would materially shed light on theCompany’s Complaint.

Page 20: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

Thomas J. Cahill, Esq.7/2/2003Page 20

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

Respondent’s employer, Proskauer, other gains from representing a soon to be trilliondollar technology in MPEG 2, and clients from the multimedia patent pools and hasrecruited Mr. Joao to assist, the Company alleges, in the burying the Company’sinventions, and perhaps the facts of the matter, cross-currently, see Mr. Utley, Mr.Wheeler, and Crossbow preparing for burying the Company itself.

VIII. DR 5-108 [§1200.27] Conflict of Interest - Former Client.

The Company re-alleges and incorporates by this reference herein, as though fully setforth, Section I Subsection A-D, Section II Subsection A-C, Section III Subsection A,Section IV Subsection A-C, Section V Subsection A-D, and Section VI Subsection A,and Section VII Subsection A-C, inclusive. Moreover, the Company further re-allegesthat Respondent, after the representation of the Company continued to represent,including but not limited to, MPEG LA, LLC in the same and substantially related matterin which Respondent’s and Proskauer’s interests are materially adverse to the interests ofthe Company, as Respondent, who is desirous of maintaining Respondent’s personalfinancial gains, esteem, probable gains to Respondent’s employer, Proskauer, other gainsfrom representing a soon to be trillion dollar technology in MPEG 2, and clients from themultimedia patent pools and has recruited Mr. Joao to assist, the Company alleges, in theburying the Company’s inventions, and perhaps the facts of the matter, cross-currently,see Mr. Utley, Mr. Wheeler, and Crossbow preparing for burying the Company itself

A. The Company re-alleges that Respondent used the confidences and trade secrets ofthe Company to the detriment of the Company.

B. The Company re-alleges that without the consent of the Company, Respondentknowingly continued to represent, including but not limited to, MPEG LA, LLC in thesame and substantially related matters in which Respondent had previously representedthe Company and: (I) Respondent’s interests and the interests of Proskauer are materiallyadverse to the Company; and (II) Respondent had acquired information protected bysection DR 4-101 [1200.19](B) that is material to the matter.

IX. DR 7-101 [§1200.32] Representing a Client Zealously.

A. The Company re-alleges and incorporates by this reference herein, as though fully setforth, Section I Subsection A-D, Section II Subsection A-C, Section III Subsection A,Section IV Subsection A-C, Section V Subsection A-D, and Section VI Subsection A,Section VII Subsection A-C, and Section VIII Subsection A-C, inclusive. Furthermore,Company re-alleges that Respondent intentionally failed to seek the lawful objectives ofthe Company through reasonably available means permitted by law and the DisciplinaryRules.

Page 21: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

Thomas J. Cahill, Esq.7/2/2003Page 21

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

More specifically, the representation by Respondent, who is desirous of maintainingRespondent’s personal financial gains, esteem, probable gains to Respondent’s employer,Proskauer, other gains from representing a soon to be trillion dollar technology in MPEG2, and clients from the multimedia patent pools and has recruited Mr. Joao to assist, theCompany alleges, in the burying the Company’s inventions, and perhaps the facts of thematter, cross-currently, see Mr. Utley, Mr. Wheeler, and Crossbow preparing for buryingthe Company itself, in his role as overseer of the Company’s patent prosecution process,is aware that his direction of Mr. Joao has the stated goal of filing the provisional patentapplication for the Company’s imaging invention by January 1999, and a goal notfulfilled until more than three months later, and wherein all disclosures had occurredwhile the Respondent and Mr. Wheeler, under the umbrella of Proskauer, had neitherexecuted a retainer agreement with the Company nor conducted conflict checks, but onlyapproximately twelve months after the Company’s technology disclosures, all conduct ofwhich reflects negatively on Respondent, Mr. Wheeler, and Proskauer.

Moreover, Respondent erroneously claims that foreigners could not be listed as inventorsin diametric opposition to Section 115 of the Patent Act38, a true copy of which isattached herein as Exhibit N, which, according to the Company’s best understanding mayinvalidate any patents at issuance; thereafter, Mr. Wheeler expedites, and bills for such,the immigration status of Mr. Shirajee and Mr. Rosario so that they may be listed asinventors; still at this point, Mr. Joao, under the direction of Respondent, fails to stateproper inventors.

Still further, the Company required Respondent’s participation, and wherein Respondentwillfully failed to participate, by teleconference during its first major technologydisclosure with Real 3D, Inc. (then a consortium of Intel Corp., Silicon Graphics, Inc.,and Lockheed Martin Corp), during which time it was found that Mr. Joao, under thedirection of Respondent, protected only the imaging invention, and wherein the Companycannot make full disclosures of the video invention and the combination of imaging andscaled video where, Mr. Wheeler, after the meeting, calls Respondent who opines that nodamage may result from the late filings as the protection of the inventions rest on the dateof invention and not the filing dates; unfortunately, Respondent was remiss in failing tostate that the international patent system relies on a “first to file” basis, rather than hisstated invention date instructions, and thus potentially exposes the Company’sinternational patent portfolio based on the late filings of imaging, video scaling, and thecombination of imaging and scaled video.

B. Still further, the Company references the removal of Mr. Joao as the Company patentprosecutor, under the direction of Respondent, and his replacement by Foley & Lardner,specifically referred by Mr. Wheeler and Mr. Utley, and still under the direction of

38 35 U.S.C. Sec. 115 (1985).

Page 22: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

Thomas J. Cahill, Esq.7/2/2003Page 22

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

Respondent. The Company further alleges that Respondent is negligent in the oversightof Foley & Lardner’s work as they fail to: (a) correct the mistakes of Mr. Joao, pursuenon-provisional patent prosecution for the Company that results in flawed work of theirown, still under the direction of Respondent, and when corrected by the Company, stillfile non-provisional patent applications filled with flaws; (b) file non-provisional patentapplications with missing and changed inventors; (c) write non-provisional patentapplications into the name of the Company’s President & Chief Operating Officer, a oneBrian G. Utley, with no assignment to the Company, and an individual who had a closeassociation with the Foley & Lardner lead, Mr. Dick, with full knowledge that Mr. Utleycould not and was not inventor of the subject matter of those non-provisionalapplications; and (d) failed to disclose the former intellectual property malfeasances ofMr. Utley and Mr. Dick at Mr. Utley’s former employer, Diamond Turf Lawnmower inFlorida.

B. Moreover, the Company re-alleges that Respondent tortuously interfered with abusiness contract by and between the Company and Warner Bros, wherein a one WayneM. Smith, Vice President and Senior Litigation and Patent Counsel called uponRespondent to re-opine, as he had many times before, and Respondent refuses basedupon his stated conflicts of interest when such conflicts of interest were not stated duringthe times of the Company’s technology disclosures to Respondent nor in Respondent’sprevious discussions with Warner Bros., and in light of his proffered employment by,including but not limited to, MPEG LA, LLC. Most specifically, the Company submitsthe statement of P. Stephen Lamont, Chief Executive Officer (“CEO Lamont”) thatdescribes his December 2001 to April 2002 discussions and correspondences withRespondent attached herein as Exhibit O, prefaced by letters of David Colter, formerVice President for Advanced Technology of Warner Bros. that references Respondent’svalidation of the Company’s inventions.

C. Lastly, the Company re-alleges the misfeasance of Respondent in light of his failureto file a copyright with the Unites States Library of Congress pertaining to the protectionof the source code algorithmically enabling the Company’s inventions, the drafting ofwhich was billed for by Mr. Wheeler’s office of Proskauer, although said office, to thebest of the Company’s knowledge, employed no intellectual property attorneys.

X. DR 7-102 [§1200.33] Representing a Client Within the Bounds of the Law.

A. The Company re-alleges and incorporates by this reference herein, as though fully setforth, Section I Subsection A-D, Section II Subsection A-C, Section III Subsection A,Section IV Subsection A-C, Section V Subsection A-D, and Section VI Subsection A,Section VII Subsection A-C, Section VIII Subsection A-C, and Section IX Subsection A-C, inclusive. Moreover, the Company further re-alleges that Respondent concealed andknowingly: (I) failed to disclose that which Respondent was required by law to disclose;

Page 23: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

Thomas J. Cahill, Esq.7/2/2003Page 23

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

(II) spoke falsehoods and presented false documents; (III) made false statement of lawand fact; (IV) participated, under the supervision of and with Mr. Joao, who was recruitedby Respondent to assist, the Company alleges, in the burying the Company’s invention,in the creation or preservation of documentation when Respondent knew that saiddocumentation is false; (V) under the supervision of and with Mr. Joao had perpetrated afraud upon a tribunal, the USPTO, without revealing the fraud to such tribunal; and (V)engaged in illegal conduct and conduct contrary to Disciplinary Rules.

B. More specifically, the Company re-alleges that Respondent, who is desirous ofmaintaining Respondent’s personal financial gains, esteem, probable gains toRespondent’s employer, Proskauer, other gains from representing a soon to be trilliondollar technology in MPEG 2, and clients from the multimedia patent pools and hasrecruited Mr. Joao to assist, the Company alleges, in the burying the Company’sinventions, and perhaps the facts of the matter, cross-currently, see Mr. Utley, Mr.Wheeler, and Crossbow preparing for burying the Company itself, knowingly failed todisclose that which Respondent was required by law to disclose, in the allegedly buryingof the Company’s inventions, and perhaps the facts of the matter, cross-currently, see Mr.Utley, Mr. Wheeler, and Crossbow preparing for burying the Company itself.

Moreover, the Company re-alleges that Respondent knowingly spoke falsehoods andpresented false documents, in investor and potential licensee discussions whilerepresenting the Company as the ultimate responsible party in the Company’s patentprosecution process, and especially in those certain discussions with the Company’s“seed” investor, an affiliate of Huizenga Holdings, Inc., as further described in Section IISubsection A, and Warner Bros. as further described in Section IX Subsection C, as wellas other clients.

C. Furthermore, the Company further re-alleges that Respondent made false statement oflaw and fact, and as to fact in his discussions with investors and potential licensepartners, particularly, including but not limited to, an affiliate of Huizenga Holdings, Inc.,Warner Bros., Crossbow Ventures, and through others, SONY Corporation, and asparticularly described herein.

D. Additionally, the Company further alleges that Respondent participated, under thesupervision of and with Mr. Joao, who was recruited by Respondent to assist, theCompany alleges, in the burying the Company’s invention, in the creation or preservationof documentation when Respondent knew that said documentation is false, as particularlydescribed in Exhibit B attached herein, the complaint, response, and the Company’srebuttal of Raymond A. Joao, Esq.

E. Lastly, the Company further alleges that Respondent according to the supervision ofand with Mr. Joao and attorneys of Foley & Lardner had perpetrated a fraud upon a

Page 24: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

Thomas J. Cahill, Esq.7/2/2003Page 24

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

tribunal, the USPTO, via principles of respondeat superior and vicarious liability,without revealing the fraud to such tribunal. Finally, as evidenced by this Section,subsection B-E, inclusive, the Company re-alleges that Respondent engaged in illegalconduct and conduct contrary to Disciplinary Rules

XI. DR 9-102 [§1200.46] Preserving Identity of Funds and Property of Others;

Fiduciary Responsibility; Commingling and Misappropriation of Client Funds or

Property; Maintenance of Bank Accounts; Record Keeping; Examination of

Records.

A. The Company re-alleges and incorporates by this reference herein, as though fully setforth, Section I Subsection A-D, Section II Subsection A-C, Section III Subsection A,Section IV Subsection A-C, Section V Subsection A-D, and Section VI Subsection A,Section VII Subsection A-C, Section VIII Subsection A-C, and Section IX Subsection A-C, and Section X Subsection A-E, inclusive. Furthermore, the Company alleges thatRespondent failed to maintain required bookkeeping records for the seven (7) year periodincluding, but not limited to copies of all bills that Respondent, who is desirous ofmaintaining Respondent’s personal financial gains, esteem, probable gains toRespondent’s employer, Proskauer, other gains from representing a soon to be trilliondollar technology in MPEG 2, and clients from the multimedia patent pools and hasrecruited Mr. Joao to assist, the Company alleges, in the burying the Company’sinventions, should have rendered to the Company. Moreover, in representation of theCompany, Respondent acknowledges39 that he neither kept no notes, electronic mailmessages, nor other records in his deposition with regard to the Litigation, wherein suchLitigation is wholly irrelevant to the Complaint, but is instructive for these purposes, andsaid acknowledgement is attached herein as Exhibit P.

Moreover, and upon request by subsequent patent counsel, Foley & Lardner, a copy ofwhich is attached herein as Exhibit P, Respondent failed, under principles of respondeat

superior and vicarious liability, to require his charge, Mr. Joao to remit all documentsrequired under Exhibit P, and not least of all, documentation Mr. Joao, by admission,destroyed, as further evidenced by Exhibit P.

Lastly, as previously described in Section V Subsection A above, in his response,Respondent points to the fact that he has not billed for one hour of work in representationof the Company, whereby by Exhibit K, the Company finds itself asking “DoesRespondent work for free?” and answers by replying “No, but only when Respondent,who is desirous of maintaining Respondent’s personal financial gains, esteem, probablegains to Respondent’s employer, Proskauer, other gains from representing a soon to betrillion dollar technology in MPEG 2, and clients from the multimedia patent pools and

39 Supra Note 2 at 24, 26.

Page 25: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

Thomas J. Cahill, Esq.7/2/2003Page 25

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

has recruited Mr. Joao to assist, the Company alleges, in the burying the Company’sinventions, and perhaps the facts of the matter, cross-currently, see Mr. Utley, Mr.Wheeler, and Crossbow preparing for burying the Company itself, as a means to cloakhis involvement in the burying of the Company’s inventions.”

XII. Lastly, the negligent actions of Respondent resulted in and were the

proximate cause of loss to the Company.

A. The history of the Company, literally back to the first day of discovery of theinventions, sees the allegations described in Defendant’s Motion for Leave to Amend toAssert Counterclaim for Damages, Proskauer Rose LLP v. Iviewit.com, Inc. et. al., CaseNo. CA 01-04671 AB (Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm BeachCounty, Florida filed May 2, 2001) attached herein as Exhibit Q, a motion of which stemsfrom that certain Litigation that is wholly irrelevant to this Complaint, but is instructivefor the alleged violations I to XI above, wherein after review by the Company’ssubsequent patents counsels, the work product of Mr. Joao, under the supervision ofRespondent, under the principles of respondeat superior and vicarious liability, who isdesirous of maintaining Respondent’s personal financial gains, esteem, probable gains toRespondent’s employer, Proskauer, other gains from representing a soon to be trilliondollar technology in MPEG 2, and clients from the multimedia patent pools and hasrecruited Mr. Joao to assist, the Company alleges, in the burying the Company’sinventions, and perhaps the facts of the matter, cross-currently, see Mr. Utley, Mr.Wheeler, and Crossbow preparing for burying the Company itself, result in the causing ofdamages to the Company over a twenty year patent life, as described in the Company’sprojections across all distribution channels as evidenced by Exhibit R attached hereinprojected at a present value of approximately Ten Billion Dollars ($10,000,000,000) ofpotential damages, and much in the way Respondent, the Company alleges, envisioned.

The Company further alleges that, once Respondent and Mr. Joao saw the Company’sinventions, Respondent sees the personal, financial need to bury these inventions, andrecruits Mr. Joao as the executioner of the Company’s inventions. Moreover, theCompany's inventions, while certainly not end to end solutions are literally the backbonetechnology of, including but not limited to, MPEG and DVD, pose formidablecompetitive threats to those pools as graphically portrayed by Exhibit S, and certainlypose a threat, by this one example, to Respondent’s fee of $8,500 per essential patent;Respondent counts among his clients both licensors (Alcatel) and licensees (Alcatel, C-Cube Microsystems, Divicom a unit of Harmonic) of MPEG evidenced by comparing hisbiography at http://www.proskauer.com/lawyers_at_proskauer/atty_data/4747 with MPEG LAlicensors and licensees at http://www.mpegla.com/.

Moreover, in his response, Respondent relies upon the testimony of certain individuals,including, but not limited to Mr. Wheeler, Mr. Utley, Mr. Raymond T. Hersh, the former

Page 26: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

Thomas J. Cahill, Esq.7/2/2003Page 26

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

Chief Financial Officer of the Company, and Gerald Lewin, a principal in the accountingfirm of Goldstein Lewin & Company of Boca Raton, Fla. and the Company’s formeroutside C.P.A. firm.

Furthermore, as to Mr. Wheeler, and wherein he states in his deposition that stems fromthat certain Litigation that is wholly irrelevant to this Complaint, but is instructive forthese purposes, that Respondent did not perform any patent work or patent oversightwork,40 then in another instance Mr. Wheeler states that he contacts Respondent todetermine what Respondent needs to determine the patentability of the Company’sinventions,41 as evidenced by Exhibit T attached herein, and referencing Mr. Wheeler’sletter to a one Richard Rossman also contained in Exhibit T. Additionally, in his FloridaBar response, Mr. Wheeler, while he admits of limited instances of consultingRespondent, is found consulting Respondent who fervently has claimed that “The onlything I did for Iviewit is I referred them to another patent lawyer42.”

Thus, First Judicial Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee should note thatthe reliance in any of Respondent's filings, and/or proceedings in this matter, on thetestimony of Mr. Wheeler that would seemingly exculpate Respondent, by the abovedeclaration it is clear that the testimony of Mr. Wheeler is worthless.

Additionally, as to Mr. Utley, and wherein he states in his deposition, interalia, thatstems from that certain Litigation that is wholly irrelevant to this Complaint, but isinstructive for these purposes, at one instance that he had no discussions with Respondentpertaining to the Company’s intellectual property43, and then in another instance statesthat he had conversations with Respondent to apprise him of the status of the Company’spatent prosecution process relative to a proposed contract with Warner Bros.,44 asevidenced by Exhibit U attached herein.

Thus, First Judicial Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee should note thatthe reliance in any of Respondent's filings, and/or proceedings in this matter, on thetestimony of Mr. Utley that would seemingly exculpate Respondent, by the aboveinconsistencies, it is clear that the testimony of Mr. Utley is worthless.

Furthermore, the Company references the testimony of Raymond T. Hersh, former ChiefFinancial Officer of the Company stating the satisfaction of the Company with the

40Supra Note 17 at 24-25.

41Supra Note 17 at 36-38.

42Supra Note 1.

43 Deposition of Brian G. Utley at 140-141, Proskauer Rose LLP v. Iviewit.com, Inc. et. al. Case No. CA

01-04671 AB (Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida filed May

2, 2001).44

Supra Note 22 at 175-176.

Page 27: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

Thomas J. Cahill, Esq. 7/8/2003 Page 27

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

services of Proskauer45. However, sometime before, and during Mr. Hersh’s tenure with the Company, we reference an electronic mail message from a one William R. Kasser, a former accounting consultant of the Company to Eliot Bernstein, wherein Mr. Kasser, as a result of an account reconciliation, alleges gross fraud in the booking of Company revenues by Mr. Hersh and Mr. Utley, as evidenced by Exhibit V attached herein. Thus, First Judicial Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee should note that the reliance in any of Respondent's filings, and/or proceedings in this matter, on the testimony of Mr. Hersh that would seemingly exculpate Respondent, by the above declaration it is clear that the testimony of Mr. Hersh is worthless. Additionally, the allegations surrounding the representation of Proskauer, through Respondent and Mr. Wheeler, finds support in the many pieces of evidence portrayed in Section I through XII, and the Complaint will still be better served by enlisting the participation of First Judicial Department Departmental Disciplinary Committee in securing the following items: (I) records of Proskauer records to determine the whereabouts of Respondent from the period of mid 1998 to February 1999; (II) records of MLGS, cross referencing the records of Proskauer to determine the whereabouts of Respondent from the period of mid 1998 to February 1999; and (III) an explanation and the series of events that led up to the referral of Mr. Joao by Respondent. Lastly, in the near future, the Company intends to: (I) file a claim with the Lawyers' Fund for Client Protection as a result of the alleged dishonest conduct in the taking of the Company’s property, to wit, the irresponsible filing of provisional and non-provisional patent applications under the supervision of Respondent; (II) fulfill its requirement to report the loss of property to an Attorney Disciplinary (Grievance) Committee; and (III) fulfill its requirement to submit a written statement to the District Attorney of New York County. Finally, the Company attaches a witness list, as Appendix I, that contains individual names, addresses, and telephone numbers, all of which shall attest to Respondent’s, who is desirous of maintaining Respondent’s personal financial gains, esteem, probable gains to Respondent’s employer, Proskauer, other gains from representing a soon to be trillion dollar technology in MPEG 2, and clients from the multimedia patent pools and has recruited Mr. Joao to assist, the Company alleges, in the burying the Company’s inventions, and perhaps the facts of the matter, cross-currently, see Mr. Utley, Mr. Wheeler, and Crossbow preparing for burying the Company itself, engagement in a series of dishonesties, appearances of untrustworthiness, conduct involving dishonesty, fraud, 45 Deposition of Raymond Hersh at 33-34, Proskauer Rose LLP v. Iviewit.com, Inc. et. al. Case No. CA 01-04671 AB (Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida filed May 2, 2001).

Page 28: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

Thomas J. Cahill, Esq. 7/8/2003 Page 28 deceit, and misrepresentation as now conclusively shown by Section I through Section XII, supra, in general, and by Section I Subsection D. paragraphs 1 to 14, in particular wherein Respondent dishonorably found the need to disavow, interalia: any knowledge whatsoever of the Company; any knowledge whatsoever of Mr. Bernstein and the other true inventors; any knowledge whatsoever of techniques known as pan and zoom technology; and through his refusal to answer questions regarding the allegedly vicariously liable MPEG LA, LLC amongst others; his charge that the deposition was harassment in that he had nothing to do with the Company; his steadfast denial of technology known as scaled video; his claim as to never opining on the Company’s technology; his denial of ever having been involved in meetings concerning the Company; his denial of ever having any discussion with anyone at Proskauer concerning the Company’s technology; his admission of not keeping notes or records of his conversations to Mr. Wheeler; his acknowledgement of never having billed the Company, though his name appears more than a dozen times, absent those billings that may have purposely removed, in billings from Mr. Wheeler’s office; his denial of making any representations to any party with regard to the Company’s technologies; his stunning reversal of his possible conversation with third parties regarding the Company’s technologies; and, his lack of knowledge as to why his name appears in an electronic mail message to a member of AOL Time Warner’s investment team, wherein that message states that Respondent opined on the Company’s technologies; the facts of the matter, Mr. Cahill, when bolstered by Exhibits A through V attached herein, and matched against Respondent’s above referenced disavowals, are clearly beyond dispute. Sincerely, IVIEWIT HOLDINGS, INC. By: P. Stephen Lamont by Eliot I. Bernstein his attorney-in-fact

_______________ P. Stephen Lamont

Chief Executive Officer (Acting)

By: ______________ Eliot I. Bernstein

President & Founder (Acting)

Page 29: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

Eliot I Bernstein

From: P. Stephen Lamont [[email protected]]Sent: Tuesday, July 08, 2003 9:22 AMTo: Eliot I. Bernstein (E-mail)Subject: Limited Power of Attorney

LIMITED POWER OF ATTORNEY

I. PARTIES. I, P. Stephen Lamont (“Principal”), with a principal address ofFour Ward Street, Brewster, New York hereby appoint Eliot I. Bernstein(“Attorney-in-Fact”) with a principal address of 10158 Stonehenge Circle,Boynton Beach, Fla. and telephone number of 561=364=4240 asattorney-in-fact to represent me in affairs consisting only of those powerslisted in Section II herein.

II. POWERS.

1. Execution of Signature Page for Iviewit Rebuttal to Rubenstein

III. DURATION. Said Attorney-in-Fact shall, subject to revocation inwriting, have authority to conduct items one (1) above and perform on behalfof Principal: All acts necessary and requisite to facilitate said functionsand/or proceedings from the period July 8, 2003 through July 11, 2003(“Duration”).

IV. OTHER ACTS.

1. None.

V. MISCELLANEOUS.

1. NOTICES. Copies of notices and other written communications addressed tothe Principal in proceedings involving the above matters should be sent tothe address set forth above.

2. CONFORMANCE TO STATE LAW. It is the intention of the parties that thisLimited Power of Attorney conform to the laws of the State of New York, andshould any section of this Limited Power of Attorney not conform to the lawsof the State of New York, it is the intention of the parties that saidsection(s) be substituted for that section that would other wise conform tothe laws of the State of New York. Should the laws of the State of New Yorkrequire any other section(s) other than the sections of this Limited Powerof Attorney, it is the intention of the parties, that said section(s) beconstrued to be included in this Limited Power of Attorney, as if saidsections were included herein.

3. NO PRIOR POWERS. This Limited Power of Attorney revokes all prior powersof attorney by and between Principal and Attorney-in-Fact with respect tothe same matters and years or periods covered by this instrument.

Best regards,

P. Stephen LamontChief Executive OfficerIviewit Holdings, Inc.10158 Stonehenge CircleBoynton Beach, Fla. 33437Tel.: 914-217-0038Email: [email protected]; [email protected]: www.iviewit.com

Page 30: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

THIS MESSAGE AND ITS EMBEDDED AND/OR ATTACHED FILES INCORPORATED HEREIN BYREFERENCE CONTAIN INFORMATION THAT IS PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL,PRIVILEGED INFORMATION. IF YOU ARE NOT THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU AREPROHIBITED FROM READING, OPENING, PRINTING, COPYING, FORWARDING, OR SAVINGTHIS MAIL AND ITS EMBEDDED AND/OR ATTACHED FILES. PLEASE DELETE THE MESSAGEAND ITS EMBEDDED AND/OR ATTACHED FILES WITHOUT READING, OPENING, PRINTING,COPYING, FORWARDING, OR SAVING THEM, AND NOTIFY THE SENDER IMMEDIATELY AT561.364.4240. IF YOU ARE THE INTENDED RECIPIENT, YOU ARE PROHIBITED FROMFORWARDING THEM OR OTHERWISE DISCLOSING THESE CONTENTS TO OTHERS, WITHOUTTHE EXPRESS WRITTEN CONSENT OF THE SENDER.

---Incoming mail is certified Virus Free.

SENATE SUMMARY

Creates the "Computer Crimes Control Act." Prohibits unlawful tampering with, interference to, damage to, or unauthorized assess to computers, computer systems, and computer data. Specifies the penalties to be imposed for the offense of computer interference. Provides that a person convicted of committing computer interference is subject to civil damages. Provides for attorney's fees. Requires colleges and universities to include computer-related crime as a violation of rules governing student conduct. Provides for the forfeiture of property used in connection with an offense of computer interference. Provides that a person may be convicted of the offense of computer interference in multiple jurisdictions. (See bill for details.)

Checked by AVG anti-virus system (http://www.grisoft.com).Version: 6.0.497 / Virus Database: 296 - Release Date: 7/4/2003

Page 31: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

EXHIBIT A

Page 32: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � ��������������������������������������������������������������������������

��������������

��������������

���������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������������� ��!�"����������#$��������

��������������%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%&

����������'��� ��(��������(���)�) )$

����������*������������������ +,�--$

����������.���������������/�)������������������0�%0�'*���"

����������1����2��3��)��!$����)$�,���+,4,5���������������6 5� 5, �$��2��3���������7($����������0������)$�,���+,4,5��6 5� 5, �$��������������,�8��2��3�����������7��($�����������������)$�,���+,4,5��6 5� 5, �$

�������������������������������-��8,��)

��������������%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%&

��������������

��������������

����������'���

����������*���������������� �(�������������������"��(����

����������.����������������������4�# 59$���4�# 59

����������1����������������3�8���8,:$�� /�;��5��0$��00�

����������0���

��������������

��������������

����������������� 5�8��:<��������������3���#��)�"�(����$�� ���������������� ��� )�����.'

��������������

=�������������������������������������������������������������������������

��������������

,>���

Page 33: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � ���������������

��������������

�������������������������������� /�;��5��0$��00�

�������������������������������������<0'�,);)

����������'���

����������*���

����������.������������������ � �� -�����������"��(����$

����������1�����������+8�,���� --6��� -� 5 �9,��5�� ��

����������0����������� $���.��"5 ,84,:$���4�# 59$���4�# 59$

����������������������5��,�� �� 6��,�8��>5��;��$

���������������������+��� �6,++:���5��,�� �,�� �5

���������������������58�5$���- 5��3��8:��)�" �9�8$�,

����������������������>��5�8� 5 -��� �,+���� 5�5�,�8

��������������������� ,5:� ��+6� -����(,�� -���4�# 59)

����������'���

����������*���

����������.���

����������1���

����������0���

��������������

��������������

��������������

��������������

��������������

=�������������������������������������������������������������������������

��������������

���������������� � ���������������(<

��������������

�������������������� ��(��������(����

,>���

Page 34: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � ���������������������� 5��:��- 5� +,�--

����������'��������������������7+,8���� ,8

����������*���������������(�����0�3��

����������.���������������" 6,��, �$��+ 58,������%*�'0

����������1���������"#<�������(�� ����3)� ��(�(��$��(?)

����������0���

��������������

��������������������(��@�A�!�2���(��@$� )�)

��������������������� 5��:��- 5���-��8,��

������������������������������"5,B+,���/����

��������������������������(�����0

����������'��������������� ,+;�"�,6�$��+ 58,����.0

����������*���������"#<���(��2���!)�(��@$��(?)

����������.����������������C�+��� �6,++:D

����������1���

����������0���

����������������(�� ��(���<

��������������������������"���(����$��(?)

����������������������C�+��� �6,++:D

��������������

��������������

=�������������������������������������������������������������������������

��������������

����������������������������������"�����(���������$

����������������������������,885����,� 5 �9,��5�� ��

���������������������� $���.��"5 ,84,:$���4�# 59$���4�# 59$

���������������������,/�>�-5��,--5;�8���- 5������ ,5:

����������'��������� ��+6$�C3��8:��)�" �9�8D$�4,���E,;��8

����������*���������,�8���-�8�,��- ++ 4�<

,>���

Page 35: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � �����������.���

����������1����&�!��������"#

����������0���!�)�(��@<

��������������������?)����!5)���������$�;:��,;���

��������������� 5��:�(�/��(�+B$���5��5�������

����������������-��8,��������6,��� -� 5 �9,��5�� ��

��������������/�5�����2�4�)6 ;)

����������������������������,;�> �>� �,�9�: ��,���5��� -

����������'���F��� ��������8�� � �$�,�8����-5�

����������*�����>������8� �9� 4���4����5� 5�� �: �

����������.����,/���,8�: �5�8�� � ��,9����5�/ ��+:)

����������1����������)�������,/���,8�;:�8�� � ��,9��

����������0����5�/ ��+:)

��������������������?)�������� 4�;,�:� 66,� ����,���,

��������������,9����+,6�$��5G

���������������������)����(�/�5,+)

��������������������?)����H(�/�5,+H$�; 5���,��,�8 B��G

���������������������)����� )

=�������������������������������������������������������������������������

�����������������������������������

��������������������?)����! 5���,��-/�G

���������������������)����� )

��������������������?)�����,��: ��>/��;��,��,��5 E;,�

����������������;��5G���4 � 5��5��G

����������'����������)������4 �+8��,:��5��� 5�- �5)

����������*���������?)�����9,:$��5��� 5�- �5)��( �: ��,5�

����������.���-,;+,5�4�����4,:�,�8�� � ��4 59�I��

����������1����,�6 55�6$��5G

����������0����������)����#��)

,>���

Page 36: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � ���������������������?)����( �-���,�9�: ��,�F��� �$���+���

��������������: ��,�9�;�� �5���5,���� 5�� ;�� 4�5�/��

������������������5�6�5�� -����F��� �$���4++��5���;�

�������������������,�: ���,/����8�5� 8�4�,����,/�

��������������,�9�8�: ��,������ ��8)

����������'����������)�����-�����9�: �5�F��� ���� -

����������*���;�5 ��5�- 5;$���6+�,5$� 5��,5,��;��$���,;

����������.���> �>� � �J�6)

����������1���������?)�����9,:$�����+�/���,�4 �+8�����

����������0���- 5�: �� �8 ����!5)� 5��,�9$�,��: �5

��������������6 ����+)

���������������������)������4++����,�:� �J�6 ����4,�� �

�����������������5�6 58$���,88 �� �!5)� 5��,�9)

��������������������?)����( $�: ��,5��5��5�����>�: �5��+-G

���������������������)����� $���,;�� $������5��5�����>

=������������������������������������������������������������������������'

�����������������������������������

��������������;�$������,;�> �>� ���� �J�6 ��� ����

��������������5�6 58$�-���4,�� )

��������������������?)������,K��-��)

��������������������������� 4$��,5�>� --�4�$��5$�6 �+8

����������'���: ���+�,����,��: �5�-�++��,;�G

����������*����������)�������������������)

����������.���������?)����H���������������)H����8�4��5�

����������1�����: �5��+,6�� -��;�+ :;���6�55��+:$

����������0���!5)���������G

���������������������)���� 5 �9,��5�� ��)

��������������������?)����3��5�����,�+ 6,�8G

���������������������)������.��"5 ,84,:$���4�# 59)

,>���

Page 37: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � ���������������������?)������8�� 4�+ �>��,/��: ������

���������������;�+ :�8�4�� 5 �9,��5�� ��G

����������'����������)������ ��- �5$�- �5%,�8%,%�,+-�:�,5�)

����������*���������?)����( ;�4��5����4�����11*�,�8��11.

����������.���4,��: �5�-5��8,�� -��;�+ :;��G

����������1����������)��������9��4,�����11.)

����������0���������?)����� �: ��5�;�;��5�,�; ��G

���������������������)���� ���+:�����)

��������������������?)��������)��3��5��4�5��: ���;�+ :�8

���������������5 5� �: �5��;�+ :;���4�� 5 �9,��5�� ��G

���������������������)������4,��4��,�+,4�-5;$�!�+B�5$

��������������!%�%�%�%@%�%�$�����$��%�% % %�)

=������������������������������������������������������������������������*

�����������������������������������

��������������������?)����!�+B�5��������+ 6,�8�4��5�G

���������������������)����!�� +,$���4�# 59)

��������������������?)����� �: ���,/��,��,885�����,�: �

��������������6,��5�6,++G

����������'����������)�������3++���/����$������8 �K��,/�

����������*������,885����5>��� 4)

����������.���������?)���� 5 5� �!�+B�5������%%�,�8

����������1���,��5 E;,�+:�4�,�4�5�����8,��� -�: �5

����������0����;�+ :;���,�!�+B�5�����G

���������������������)������ ���11�� ��11.)

��������������������?)������8�4�,�88�: ��8 �,�!�+B�5

������������������G

���������������������)������4,��,��, 5��:)

��������������������?)�����8�: ���,/��,�:����6,+B, �G

����������'����������)������4,��,��,���, 5��:)

,>��'

Page 38: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � �����������*���������?)�����5��: ���++�,��,���, 5��:G

����������.����������)����#��)

����������1���������?)��������,�: �5�5 +��,� 5 �9,��5

����������0���� ���6�55��+:$���,��,���, 5��:G

���������������������)����#��)

��������������������?)�����5��: ��,��,5��5� -� 5 �9,��5

��������������� ��G

���������������������)����#��)

��������������������?)�����5��: ��,���,5�� +8�5� -� 5 �9,��5

=������������������������������������������������������������������������.

�����������������������������������

��������������� ��G

���������������������)�������� 5���� ��5$����5��,5��5

�������������� 5���,5�� +8�5)

������������������������������9�K��,��,5��5���)

����������'���������?)�����K��,��,5��5���)��� �: ���,/�

����������*���,�:� 4��5������5���������,5��5�����

����������.������������ -� �+>, ����,�> ���: �8�4�,

����������1���� ;�� -���� ��5��,5��5���,/�G����� ��5

����������0���4 58�$�8 �: ���,/��,���F�:���,5�G��� �: �

���������������,/��,�:� ��5�6+,;��4��5�>,58� �,�

����������������5����� 5 �9,��5�� ��G

���������������������)�������,/��� �8�,)

��������������������?)���� 5 5� �!�+B�5�����$�4��5��4�5�

��������������: ���;�+ :�8$��5G

����������'����������)������ ��5�+,4�-5;)

����������*���������?)����� �: ��5�;�;��5�����,;�� -��,

����������.���+,4�-5;G

����������1����������)����!,5; 5�9$�!%�%�%!%�%�%�%�$

,>��*

Page 39: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � �����������0���7�;,�$�7%�%�%�%!%�%�$�A���������)

��������������������?)����3�5��: �����H��������H�����

���������������,;�� -����-5;G

���������������������)����#��)

��������������������?)������8�: ��4�5��,��,5��5����,

��������������-5;G

������������������������������������������������������������������������1

�����������������������������������

���������������������)����#��)

��������������������?)����3�,�4�5�����8,��� -�: �5

���������������;�+ :;������,�-5;�%%

���������������������)�������%%

����������'���������?)����%%�!,5; 5�9�7�;,��A���������)

����������*����������)����%%��5 �,�+:��,5�>�����

����������.����>���$�;8%�>���$���+��11�)

����������1���������?)������8�4�,�4,�����,5�,� -�: �5

����������0����5,66�$�4����: ��4�5��4��!,5; 5�9�%%

���������������������)����!%�%�%!%�%�%�%�)

�������������������������� ,���+,4)

��������������������?)���� ,���+,4)����8�: �5�8,���%%�: �

���������������,:�: ��+�-�!,5; 5�9�7�;,��A����������,�8

��������������4��� �!�+B�5������,�8����� � 5 �9,��5

����������'���� ��$����,�,++�;���: ��4�5��,��,��

����������*���+,4:�5�%%

����������.����������)����#��)

����������1���������?)����%%����,�,�6 55�6��,�;��G

����������0����������)����#��)

��������������������?)��������,�,�6 55�6��,�;��$��5G

���������������������)����#��)

��������������������?)����# ���,/�� �4,���+���-��� ,>��.

Page 40: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � �

�����������������F��� �)

���������������������)����� $�: ��,5��� �>��>���

=������������������������������������������������������������������������0

�����������������������������������

��������������,��4�5��6+�,5+:���: �5���,8)��# ���� �+8�,9�

�����������������5�� ��)

��������������������������!�)�(��@<��! /�� ��59��,�

��������������������� �%5��� ��/�)

����������'���������������C!���������(�����)D

����������*����������)������,K��-��$�; /�� ��59��)

����������.���������?)����(5$�8�5�>��,���5����5 8� -

����������1���;�$����$�: ��4�5��,��,���+,4:�5I����,

����������0���,�6 55�6��,�;��� -�-,6G

���������������������)����#��)

��������������������?)�����5��: ��-,;+,5�4��� ;���>

���������������,K��6,++�8�H�,��,�8�B ;��6�� + >:HG

���������������������)������,;�� ���5��4�,�: ��;�,���:

���������������,)

����������'���������?)����3�++$�+��;���,5�/�5:��;�+:$

����������*���,�8��,:���)���5��: ��-,;+,5�4��,�6 �6��

����������.����,�,��;,>��6,�������+,5>�8�4�+�����>

����������1���5,��;�8� ��,��,55 4��,�848�G

����������0����������)������8 �K�9� 4�4�,�: ��,5��,+9�>

��������������,� �)

��������������������?)�����9,:)��3�++$�+��;��> ��,69�

����������������$����$��5)���5��: ��-,;+,5�,�,++�4�

������������������6�� + >:��/ +/�8�4���2�4�)6 ;G

���������������������)����� )

,>��1

Page 41: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � �

=�������������������������������������������������������������������������

�����������������������������������

��������������������?)����� �: ���,/��,�:��- 5;, ��,�,++

��������������4��5�>,58� �,�:� -�����2�4������G

���������������������)����� �,����;�$�� )

��������������������?)����H� �,����;�)H���8�: ���,/�

����������'���,�:��- 5;, ��,�,�:�;��������,�$��5G

����������*����������)����� ��,���9� 4� -�5>��� 4)

����������.���������?)����� �: ���,/��,�:�-+��� 5�5�6 58�

����������1����86,�>��,�: ���,8�,�:�8�,+�>��4��%%

����������0���,�8���4++�> ��5 �>��,�+����5��%%

���������������2�4�)6 ;$���6)G

���������������������)����� ��,���9� 4� -)

��������������������?)�����2�4�$����G

���������������������)����� ��,���9� 4� -)

��������������������?)�����2�4�G

����������'����������)����� ��,���9� 4� -)

����������*���������?)�����2�4�$���6)G

����������.����������)����� ��,���9� 4� -)

����������1���������?)�����,/��: ���/�5���,58� -�,�

����������0����8/8�,+��,;�8��+ �"�5����G

���������������������)������;>���,/�)

��������������������?)����3�++$��5$��,K�����5�,�H#��H

�������������� 5�H� H�F��� �)

���������������������)�����9�����,8$�����9����4 59��- 5

���������������2�4�$�,�8���;,:��,/����,58�����,;�)

=�������������������������������������������������������������������������

,>���0

Page 42: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � ������������������������������������

��������������������?)����� 4�,� ��4�,���6,++�8����! �7

�������������� ,��� +$��,/��: ����,58� -��,G

���������������������)����#��$����,/�)

��������������������?)����3�:�8 �K�: ���++�;��4�,��,

����������'����)

����������*����������)������6+��� �,��4�5�,����;�)

����������.���������?)����3�:�8 �: ��8�6+��� �,��4�5G

����������1����������)�����55�+�/,�� ����8�� � �)

����������0���������?)�����K;�� 55:$�55�+�/,�6:���� �,�

�������������� �J�6 ���,�4 �+8�,++ 4�: ��� � �,��4�5$

���������������5)

���������������������)����!,9��,�; �� ����J�8>�)���-���

�������������� 58�5��;�� ��++�: ��,� ��$���4++��++

��������������: �)

����������'���������������!�)�(��@<����5�$�,5��: �

����������*�����������5�6�>�: �5�6+���� � �,��4�5G

����������.���������������!�)� ��(�(��<����,;�> �>� ���

����������1���������,��F��� ��- 5�5�+�/,�6:��,��8� ����

����������0���������6 �5K��>5,��>� -����; ��,�8

��������������������+;�>� �����5�6 58$�,�8�-

��������������������!5)����������8�6+���� �,��4�5����

�������������������������8�6+��>� �,��4�5)

����������������������������8$�J���� ���8 �K��,/�� �9���

�������������������� �J�6�>$�!5)�(�+B$� �;,9����

=�������������������������������������������������������������������������

�����������������������������������

���������������������,��5$�;:� �J�6 ����6 ����>��

���������������������,�5��,�� �,�:�F��� ���5�>,58�>�,�:

,>����

Page 43: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � ���������������������5,��,6 ���- 5��2�4���,�: ��,5�

��������������������> �>� �,�9�!5)����������-����4,�

����������'����������/ +/�8����,��8� �����6 �5K�

����������*���������>5,��>� -����; ��,�8�+;�>)

����������.���������������!�)�(��@<�����;��> � �����5�6 58

����������1���������,�8��,:����8�6 /�5:�8 6�;�����,

����������0����������,/��������5 8�6�8��:������-��8,���%%

�������������������� +,�--������;,�5��86,�

��������������������/,5 ���8�,+�>����4�6�� 5 �9,��5�� ��

��������������������4,��,--+,�8��6+�8�>�8�,+�>��4�

���������������������)�3,:�����B��>,$��5 ��" 4�2���5��$

��������������������3,6� /,$�,���;��5� -� ��5�����

����������'���������4�6��,5���,5� -����8�6 /�5:�,�8��,/�

����������*���������������5 8�6�8��:���� +,�--����5��,�

����������.��������� �,�/,+8�5�F����- 5��5 8�6 �$�� �

����������1�������������E���: ��,5��6+,;�>�K�����J�6

����������0��������� �,�:�; ��,�8�+;�8$��,K��-��

��������������������4��5�>,58� ����5,+$�,�8���

��������������������8�6 /�5:�: ���5 8�6�8� ��: �5� 4�

����������������������5��,�� �,�5�F����- 5��5 8�6 �

��������������������4�6���,��� ��������+8��/,+8��6+�8��

�������������������������/�5:�;,�5�)

=�������������������������������������������������������������������������

�����������������������������������

���������������������)����( �4�:�8 �K�: ���++�;��; 5�

���������������,56�+,5+:�4�,�: ��4,�� �9� 4)

��������������������������!�)� ��(�(��<��!5)�(�+B$�+��;�

��������������������J���5��� �8� ��,)

����������'������������������5��4�5����/�5�,�:�,--5;,/�

,>����

Page 44: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � �����������*���������8�-������,���5�8��:������-��8,����

����������.������������;,�5��,��,/��,�:��>� �8

����������1���������4���,56�+,5�5,��,6 ��$���

����������0���������8�-�������/ +/�8�4����5�����++�

��������������������4�5��%%

��������������������������!�)�(��@<����K��> �%%

��������������������������!�)� ��(�(��<����>�� �-���

����������������������6,����%%

��������������������������!�)�(��@<��7 �,��,8�,�8�-���)

����������'���������������!�)� ��(�(��<����,�9�: �)

����������*������������������5��4�5����/�5�,�:�,--5;,/�

����������.���������8�-������,���5�8��:������-��8,����

����������1������������;,�5�5�+,�>� �,�:��>� ��5

����������0����������,�����,; ��� -�����++�)����8$�� $

�������������������� �����E����,����6 �5�>5,��8� �5

��������������������; ��+;�>�$������-��8,���6,�K

�����������������������,�:��/8��6�� -�,�:��,56�+,5

��������������������5,��,6 ��� 5�,++�>�8�45 �>8 �>��:

�������������������� 5 �9,��5� ��,�5,+$���� ��,

=�������������������������������������������������������������������������

�����������������������������������

���������������������E�����,;�> �>� �,�9�!5)���������

�������������������� �,��4�5�: �5�F��� ��)���-���-��+

���������������������,���:�,5����6 ;�>� /�55�,6��>$��

��������������������4++�;,9��%%� 5�-�: ��,5���E��8�>�

����������'���������-,5�� �4�,�����9���,�/ +, �� -

����������*������������6 �5K��>5,��>� -����; �� -

����������.���������+;�>$���4++�;,9��,� ��5� �J�6 �)

����������1���������������!�)�(��@<����8�+��;��> � ����

,>����

Page 45: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � �����������0���������5�6 58$����; �� -�+;�>���-��

��������������������4��5�>,58� �,�:��>��5�����8�,

��������������������5,+)����6�5,�+:�8 ���� ��5�6+�8�

������������������������6 ��� -�8�6 /�5:�-5 ;��6+�8�>$

����������������������,�8�� � �$�F��� ���4�6��;,:

��������������������+�,8� �8�6 /�5,�+���/8��6��6 �6�5��>

����������'�������������++��,�8������5/6����,�4�5�

����������*����������5 /8�8$�4�6��������,���- 5���

����������.���������,--5;,/��8�-�����)

����������1���������������!�)� ��(�(��<����8���,;�,4,5���,

����������0���������: ���,/��� ;��+,�8��4��5����6�

��������������������8�6 /�5:���8�5����5�+��)

��������������������������!�)�(��@<����8�����9�4���,/�

���������������������5�:��>�-6,��+,�8����8�5���

��������������������5�+��)

����������������������������8�4��5�>,58� �: �5�6+��$

=������������������������������������������������������������������������'

�����������������������������������

��������������������!5)���������$��86,�>�����

��������������������5�-���>� �,��4�5$�����+�/��: ���� �+8

����������������������5�6��;�5>��� 4$���8�5��+ 58,

��������������������+,4$����8 ���K��,/�����5>�� �5�-���

����������'��������� �,��4�5)

����������*����������)�����++�5>�$���4++�,��4�5���

����������.���F��� �)

����������1���������������!�)� ��(�(��<����J����,8�,

����������0���������;����,> �4��4++�> �,��,8)

���������������������)������:��>�: ��4,�� �9� 4�,� �

�����������������! �7����,���� +$��,K�����+6

,>����

Page 46: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � ����������������- 5;, �$�K���� ��,�4�����$

��������������! �7��)6 ;)��# ���� �+8�> �+ 9�,��,

��������������4�����)����:����+6��- 5;, ���,���,;

����������'�����+�8� ��++�: ���� ���,�4�����)

����������*���������?)����3�++$���,;�> �>� �,�9�: �$��5$

����������.��������8�� � �� �>/��;���,

����������1����- 5;, �)

����������0����������)������8���,;�J����++�>�: �� �>

��������������+ 9�,����4�����)

��������������������������!�)�(��@<��������5�6 58��� 4���

��������������������4�������5�-���>� �5��� �8� �,

��������������������85�6�F��� �)

���������������������)������,���,���6 55�6

=������������������������������������������������������������������������*

�����������������������������������

��������������6�,5,6�5B, �� -����5�6 58)

������������������������������5�6 58��� 4���,��� +8�: ��,

���������������+,6��4��5��: ��6,��>�����,��4�5�/�5:

���������������,�+:)�����5����� �5�,� ��- 5�: �� �;,9��;�

����������'�������5��,�8�4,���;:�;��5���,�>� �: �

����������*�����>��: ��6,���,�+:�5�,8�,� �)

����������.���������?)����3�++$��5$������: �5���; �:

����������1���,�: �5�8�� � �)

����������0����������)������,K��5>�$�4�6��: ��,5��;,9�>

��������������;��8 )����6 ��8�5����8�� � ��� ��>���

���������������,5,��;��$�6 ��8�5�>��,����,8�� ��>�

��������������8 �4�����6 ;�,�:)���K��J���,�- 5;� -

���������������,5,��;��)

��������������������������# ��> �5�,8����4�����$�-�: �

,>����

Page 47: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � �����������'���4,�� �9� 4�,� ��)

����������*���������?)�����9,:$�� �: ��,5��5�-���>�

����������.���,��4�5G

����������1����������)������,;�� �5�-���>)

����������0���������?)�������5��,��,8/��>�;�� �> � �,

��������������4������%%

���������������������)������,;�� �5�-���>� �,��4�5)���

��������������88�,��4�5)�� +�,���� ��6�,5,6�5B�>�;:

����������������; �:)���� +8�: �����,��4�5)���� +8�: �

��������������,++����+6+:%,/,+,�+���- 5;, ��,� ����

=������������������������������������������������������������������������.

�����������������������������������

��������������! �7��,���� +�6,�����- ��8�,

��������������333)! �7��)6 ;)��# ��,5��-5��� �> �5�,8�)

�������������� +�,���> �5�,8��,�8�: ��4++�+�,5��,++�: �

�����������������8� �9� 4�,� ��)

����������'���������?)����( �: ��,5��� �> �>� ��++�;�

����������*���4�,����H! �7��,���� +H��G

����������.����������)������ +8�: ��: ��6 �+8�> �5�,8�)

����������1���������?)�����9,:)

����������0���������������!�)�(��@<����5�$�8 �: ��4,��

����������������������5�6�: �5�4����$� 5�8�� ���$� 5

��������������������6+��$�,�,++����,�;,�5G

��������������������������!�)� ��(�(��<��� �: ���,/��,�:

�����������������������6-6�F��� ���4��5����6�

���������������������2�4�������! �7��,���� +G

����������'���������������!�)�(��@<��#��)

����������*����������)�����++�5>�$�� �4�:�8 �K�: ��,�9�;�

����������.���� ���F��� ��)

,>���'

Page 48: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � �����������1���������������!�)�(��@<����4,��!5)���������

����������0��������� �-5���E�+,�� �;��4�,����H! �7

���������������������,���� +H��$�,�8�������4++�,�9��;

��������������������F��� ���6 �6�5��>��E,6+:�� 4�

��������������������5�+,��� ��2�4�)

����������������������������� ��5�4 58��%%

���������������������)�����9,:$���4++�,��4�5�� ��: �5

=������������������������������������������������������������������������1

�����������������������������������

��������������F��� ��)

��������������������?)����7 �,��,8)

���������������������)��������H! �7��,���� +H���,

��������������6 ++�6 �� -��,���� 4��8��:�,�>5 ��� -

����������'���6 ;�,����5�+,�8� ����! �7���/8�

����������*���6 ;�5��� ���,�8,58�,�8$�,��-,5�,����9� 4$�

����������.����,��� ��>�4�,� �/�5� �8 �4���2�4�)

����������1���������?)����( ���,��� ��6�� + >:�%%���

����������0���! �7��,���� +������� ��6�� + >:���,�:�4,:

��������������5�+,�8� �,�:� -�����2�4������� 5

����������������5���++�6�,+��5 ��5��I����,�: �5

����������������; �:G

���������������������)����� $�K��� �;:���; �:)

��������������������?)�����9,:)

����������'����������)����!:���; �:��$�K��,�>5 ��� -

����������*����,����6� ����,66 58�>� �/�5:����6-6

����������.���65�5,�5�+,�8� ����! �7����,�8,58�,�8$

����������1��� �;:�9� 4+�8>�$��,��� ��>� �8 �4�

����������0����2�4�)

����������������������������8��+�,���8 �� �6�,5,6�5B��;:

,>���*

Page 49: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � ���������������4 58�)�� +�,���8 �� �5���5,�����;)���-�: �

��������������8 �K�9� 4�4�,����,8$�: ��6,��,�9���

��������������5�� 5�5� �5�,8���,69)��"��8 ��

��������������6�,5,6�5B��;:���; �:)

=������������������������������������������������������������������������0

�����������������������������������

��������������������������!�)�(��@<���>,�$�+�����5�6 58

��������������������5�-+�6����8�� ������� ����>

��������������������5��� ��/�)

���������������������)������,;����>�/�5:�5��� ��/�)

����������'��� +�,���� ��6�,5,6�5B�>�;:���; �:)����8

����������*����+�,���� �����>���>�� �����5�6 58��,

����������.���,5���6 55�6)

����������1���������?)����!5)���������$���,;�,�9�>�: �

����������0���F��� ��$�,�8���,;�,�9�>�%%

���������������������)������8�: ��,5��� �+����>� ���

��������������,��4�5��/�5:�6,5�-�++:$�� �%%���8 �K�9� 4�� 4

��������������;�6���E��5��6��: ���,/��,9�>�8�� � ���%%

��������������������������!�)�(��@<���>,�$�+�����5�6 58

��������������������5�-+�6��,�%%

����������'����������)����( ����55���>�;:�,��4�5�)���

����������*���� ���55���;�)

����������.���������?)����!5)�%%

����������1����������)����� �� ���55���;�)

����������0���������?)����!5)����������%%

���������������������)�������;��-���)

���������������������������5��: ��> �>� ��5 6��8�

��������������6 ����� ���55���;�� 5�� G

��������������������?)�����-�: ��4,�� �,��4�5���

,>���.

Page 50: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � ���������������F��� ��$����,/��� ��5 �+�;)

=�������������������������������������������������������������������������

�����������������������������������

���������������������)����� 9$���,��4�5�8�: �5�F��� ��)

��������������# ��,5����,�+�� �9����5,69� -�4�,���,;

���������������,:�>)

��������������������������( $��+�,��$�-�: ��8 �K�9� 4�4�,

����������'������,8$�,�9����5�� 5�5� �5�,8���,69$���

����������*����+�,���8 �� �6�,5,6�5B��;:���; �:��

����������.���: �5� 4��4 58�)

����������1���������?)�����9,:�%%

����������0����������)��������8 �K�8 �)

��������������������?)����3�,���,;�,�9�>�: ������)���

��������������,�:� -����;�;��5�� -����! �7��,���� +����

��������������,�:� -�����6�� + >��� -��2�4�G

���������������������)������4 �+8��,/��� �8�,)

��������������������?)����3� ��������5� ����6�,5>�� -���

����������'���! �7��,���� +$��5G

����������*����������)�����9�����,:$���,8/���: �� �6��69

����������.�����5�4������-�: ��4,�� �9� 4��- 5;, �

����������1���,� ���,��,���� +)

����������0���������?)����3�++$�,>,��%%

���������������������)�����K��� �;�)

��������������������?)�����5��: ���/ +/�8�4�����! �7

���������������,���� +$��5G

���������������������)����#��)

��������������������?)����3�,���: �5�� � ��%%

=�������������������������������������������������������������������������

,>���1

Page 51: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � �

�����������������������������������

���������������������)������,;�6 ����+� �! �7$����)

��������������������?)����� �: ��,8/������! �7��,���� +

��������������4��5�>,58� �+�>,+������G

���������������������)������,K���5/+�>�8��- 5;, �)

����������'���������?)����� �4����5� 5�� �: ��,8/��8

����������*�����;� ��+�>,+������)

����������.����������)����# ��,5��,�9�>�;��%%���,;��

����������1���> �>� �8�6����4��: ��,�:��>�,� �

����������0���,�:��>���8 �4��,�:� ��5�6+�������

��������������+,4�-5;)

��������������������?)����3�++$��5$���,;�� �,�9�>�: ����

������������������,�6�� -�4�,�: ���,/��,8/��8���;$���,;

���������������;�+:�,�9�>�: ��4����5� 5�� �: ��,8/��8

����������������;)

����������'����������)������ +8�: �$���,;���5�6 ����+)

����������*���������?)�����9,:)���,/��: ���/�5������,�:� -

����������.��������++�6�,+��5 ��5��� 5��6�� + >��

����������1����,��2�4���,��8�/�+ ��8�- 5��6,+�8�/8� G

����������0����������)����� ��,���5�6,++�,����;�)

��������������������?)����3�5��: ���/�5��/ +/�8���,�:

���������������,���,��+6, ���- 5��6,+�8�/8�

���������������6�� + >���- 5��2�4�)6 ;G

���������������������)����� )

��������������������?)�����8�: ���/�5�5�/�4�,�:��,��

=�������������������������������������������������������������������������

�����������������������������������

��������������,��+6, ��,�,++�- 5��2�4��%% ,>���0

Page 52: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � �

���������������������)����� ��,���5�6,++)

��������������������?)�����8�: ���/�5� ����4��5�>,58�

�����������������/,+8:� -�,�:��,���,��+�8�- 5� 5

����������'���5�6�/�8��:��2�4�)6 ;G

����������*����������)�����9�����,:$���4,��� ���,�:�4,:

����������.����/ +/�8�4��>��>��,����- 5��2�4�)

����������1���������?)����3�,�4�5��: ���/ +/�8�4�$�-

����������0���: ��4�5�$�4���2�4�G

���������������������)�������� �+:���>���88�- 5��2�4�

������������������5�-�55�8���;� �,� ��5��,���+,4:�5)

��������������������?)������8�4� ����,G

���������������������)������>�:��,;�8��,:�� , )

��������������������?)������8�4��5��88�!5)�� , �4 59G

����������'����������)��������+�/�����4,��4 59�>�,���

����������*���;��,�;:�- 5;�5�+,4�-5;$�!�+B�5�����)

����������.���������?)������8�4�,�8,��4,����G

����������1����������)������8 �K�5�6,++)

����������0���������?)����( $�: ��4�5���;�+ :�8��:� 5 �9,��5

��������������� ���,����;�G

���������������������)����#��)

��������������������?)������8�: ��5�-�55�8��2�4��

��������������!�+B�5�����G

���������������������)������5�-�55�8��2�4�� ��,:�� , $

=�������������������������������������������������������������������������

�����������������������������������

��������������4� �����+�/��4,��4 59�>�,�!�+B�5������,

���������������,�;�)

��������������������?)����3� �88�: �����,9� �,��2�4�$

���������������5G ,>����

Page 53: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � �

����������'����������)������8 �K�5�6,++)

����������*���������?)�����8�: ��9����,�:�� ��� -�: �5

����������.���6 �/�5�, ��4��5�>,58� ����5�-�55,+G

����������1����������)����� )

����������0���������?)�����8�: �����,9� �!5)�� , �4�

��������������5�>,58� ����5�-�55,+G

���������������������)������8 �K�5�6,++)

��������������������?)����3�:�88�: ��5�-�5����;,�5�

��������������!�+B�5�����G

���������������������)����"�6,�����4,��K�4 59���4,��8�

����������'�����8�5,9��;:��+-)

����������*���������?)������8�4�:�4,���,G

����������.����������)����"�6,������,;�� �>���5,++:�����

����������1����,����5 ��6� ���������$���; ��6,���)

����������0���������?)�����8�: ���/�5�;���4��,�:�;�;��5�

�������������� -����� ,58� -�85�6 5�� -��2�4�)6 ;G

���������������������)����� ��,���9� 4� -)

��������������������?)����3�5��: ���/�5��/ +/�8���,�:

��������������;���>��4��,�: ���6 �6�5��>��2�4�)6 ;G

���������������������)����� $�� ��,���9� 4� -)

=�������������������������������������������������������������������������

�����������������������������������

��������������������?)����� 4�,� ��,�:�5��5����,/��-5 ;

����������������,+����G

���������������������)������/�5���,58� -�)

��������������������?)����� 4�,� ��3,5��5�"5 �)G

����������'����������)����3,5��5�"5 �)���,�6+�����5�)

����������*���������?)�����9,:)���8�: ���,/��,�:

����������.���8�6��� ���4��3,5��5�"5 �)�,� ���2�4�G ,>����

Page 54: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � �

����������1���������������!�)� ��(�(��<����J�6 �)

����������0����������)������:�%%

��������������������������!�)� ��(�(��<�����5�6��;�� �

��������������������,��4�5)

��������������������������C�������������������(3��)D

���������������������)������:�6 �/�5�, ����;,8�� 5��,8

��������������4��3,5��5�"5 �)�4 �+8����6 �-8��,+)����,;

����������'���� ��,:�>���5��4,�� 5�4,��� ���6��,

����������*���6 �/�5�, �$��4 �+8�����5/+�>�8)

����������.���������?)������,;�� �,�9�>�: ��- 5���

����������1���6 ����� -����6 �/�5�, �$���4,�� �9� 4

����������0���-���5��4,�� ��)

���������������������)������,;�� ��,:�>�%%���8 �K�9� 4�-

����������������5��4,�� ��)

����������������������������8�-���5��4,�$���4 �+8�K��++

��������������: ��,� ��$�,�:4,:)

��������������������?)����� 4�,� ��� ++:4 8)6 ;G

=������������������������������������������������������������������������'

�����������������������������������

���������������������)������/�5���,58� -�)

��������������������?)�����8�: ���/�5��,/��,�:�8�6��� ��

��������������4��,�: ���,� 5 �9,��5�� ���6 �6�5��>���

���������������2�4����6�� + >��G

����������'����������)����� ��,���5�6,++)

����������*���������?)�����8�: ���,/��,�:�8�6��� ���4�

����������.���,�: ���%%�+�K���,:���5��3���+�5$

����������1����,56�+,5+:$�,� 5 �9,��5�� ���4��5�>,58�

����������0���,�:��>�,��2�4�G

���������������������)������;>���,/�$������8 �K�5�6,++ ,>����

Page 55: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � �

��������������,�:��>�,� ���,����;�$�-���88)

��������������������?)�����8�: ���/�5�6 ����+�,�: ���,

���������������2�4��6 �6�5��>�,�:�;,�5��5�>,58�>���

���������������,��� 5��,���,��+6, ��G

����������'����������)����� ��,���5�6,++)

����������*���������?)�����8�: ��9����,�:�-+���: �5��+-

����������.���4��5�>,58� ��2�4��,�8�,�:�6 ;;��6, ��

����������1���4���2�4�G

����������0����������)������8 �K���9�� $�� )

��������������������������!�)� ��(�(��<����J�6 �$�,�9�8

��������������������,�8�,��4�5�8)

��������������������?)�����8�: ���/�5��+,:�,�5 +��,��,�

��������������,8/� 5:�� ,58�;�;��5�- 5��2�4�G

���������������������)����� ��,���9� 4� -$�� )

=������������������������������������������������������������������������*

�����������������������������������

��������������������?)����3�++$��5$���,;�,�++�

��������������6 �-���8)��# ��� 5;,++:�4 �+8�5�6,++��,�: �

��������������4 �+8���� ��,�� ,58� -�85�6 5��%%

���������������������)������8 �K���9���4,�� ��,�:���6�

����������'���� ,58)

����������*���������������� �;:�9� 4+�8>�$���4,�� ��� ���6�

����������.���� ,58)

����������1���������?)������8�: ����/�5��,8�,�:

����������0���6 ;;��6, ���4��,�:�� ,58�;�;��5�-5 ;

���������������2�4�I����,�,�6 55�6�6�,5,6�5B, ��%%

���������������������)�������,8�,�%%��5 �,�+:�,��� ���6,++

�������������� 5�4 �4��"5,���+�:)����,;�� ���5��-

����������������K��,�� ,58�;�;��5� 5�� ) ,>����

Page 56: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � �

��������������������?)������8�4�,�4�5�����6 ����� -�: �5

����������'���6 �/�5�, ��4��!5)��+�:G

����������*����������)������8 �K�5�6,++)

����������.���������?)�����8�: ���/�5�,+9� �,�: ���,

����������1���3,5��5�"5 �)�4��5�>,58� ��2�4�G

����������0����������)����# ��,5��,�9�>�- 5��5/+�>�8

���������������- 5;, �$�� 55:)

��������������������?)����3�++$�4����5� 5�� �: ���,8

��������������6 ;;��6, ���%%

���������������������)����� $�: ��,5��,�9�>�- 5����6 ���

�������������� -�6 ;;��6, ��)

=������������������������������������������������������������������������.

�����������������������������������

��������������������?)����� $���,;�� �,�9�>�- 5���

��������������6 ���)

���������������������)����#��$�: ��,5�)

��������������������?)���� +�,���+���� �;:�F��� �)

����������'���������������!�)� ��(�(��<��!5)�%%

����������*���������?)��������F��� ��4,�$�88�: ���/�5

����������.���8�6����,�:�;,�5��6 �6�5��>��2�4��4�

����������1���,�: ���-5 ;�3,5��5�"5 �)$���5 8)����,;��

����������0���,�9�>�: ��- 5����6 ������6,���$�6+�,5+:$

��������������-�: ��4,�� �,���5�,�6+,;� -��5/+�>�� �

���������������,$�,�8�3,5��5�"5 �)���,�6+��� -�: �5�$

������������������: ��6,��,���5�$������,;�,�9�>�: �

��������������4����5� 5�� �: ���,8�,�:�8�6��� ���,

��������������,++)����,;�� �,�9�>�: ��- 5����6 ����)

����������'����������)������,;�%%

����������*���������������!�)� ��(�(��<��!5)�(�+B$���,; ,>����

Page 57: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � �

����������.���������> �>� � �J�6)����,;���5�6�>

����������1���������!5)����������� � �,��4�5)���K�

����������0����������5/+�>�8�, 5��:L6+��

��������������������6 ;;��6, �)

��������������������������C�������������������(3��)D

��������������������������!�)�(��@<��� ����-,6� -�4����5

�������������������� 5�� �����,8�,�:�8�6��� ���%%

��������������������������!�)� ��(�(��<����,;�� �,5>��>)

=������������������������������������������������������������������������1

�����������������������������������

��������������������3��,5��� �,++ 4�8$���8�5�����+ 58,

��������������������5�+��$� �,5>��� �J�6 ��)����,;

����������������������5�6�>��;�� � �,��4�5)

��������������������������!�)�(��@<������8�5�,�8)

����������'���������������!�)� ��(�(��<����8���6,�K�,5>��

����������*���������4��: �)

����������.���������������!�)�(��@<������� ����5�6 58��

����������1���������6+�,5$�: �5� �J�6 ����K�

����������0����������5/+�>�8$�4����5� 5�� �����/����� 9�

�������������������� �3,5��5�"5 �)

��������������������������!�)� ��(�(��<��#��$�,� ���2�4�)

��������������������������!�)�(��@<���� ���2�4�)

��������������������������!�)� ��(�(��<��#��)

��������������������?)����� �: ��9� 4�4� �75�>���,>,58��G

����������'����������)����#��$���8 )

����������*���������?)����3� �����G

����������.����������)����������8� �4 59�,�3,5��5�"5 �)

����������1���������?)�������8 ���K�4 59�4��3,5��5�"5 �)

����������0���,�:; 5�I����,�6 55�6G ,>���'

Page 58: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � �

���������������������)����� 55�6)

��������������������?)����3����88�: ��5��5�����3,5��5

��������������"5 �)$��5G

���������������������)������$��,K��� �%%��,K�

���������������5/+�>�8��- 5;, �$�� 55:)

=������������������������������������������������������������������������0

�����������������������������������

��������������������������!�)� ��(�(��<����,;�> �>�

�������������������� �J�6�- 5�5�+�/,�6:$�,�8���5�6���

��������������������4������ � �,��4�5)���K��,+�

���������������������5/+�>�8)

����������'���������������C�������������������(3��)D

����������*���������������!�)�(��@<����8 �K���9�6,���+,4

����������.������������� 5������ � ���,�4������

����������1���������5��5�����8�,�6+���%%

����������0���������������!�)� ��(�(��<���5��4��> �>�

��������������������,5>����/�5:�;����5����,�� �J�6 �G

��������������������������!�)�(��@<��� $�� $�� )

���������������������)����3��4++�+>,�� ���������)

��������������3��4++�+>,��� �)��# ��9� 4$�;,9��,

��������������; �)��3��4++�->��)��3��4++�����4�

����������'���4��)

����������*���������?)����!5)����������,>,�$�: ��9� 4$

����������.��������: �5�8�� � ��%%

����������1����������)������8 �K�%%

����������0���������?)����%%���,��5�6,�����-,6��,�: �

��������������4,�� ��E�5����: �5� �� �)��� 4�/�5$

��������������!5)� 5��,�9�6,���++�: �$������� �� 4

��������������8�� � ���,5��6 �8�6�8������(,�� - ,>���*

Page 59: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � �

���������������+ 58,)

���������������������)�������)����,;�� �8�6����>

=�������������������������������������������������������������������������

�����������������������������������

��������������,�:��>�,� ��3,5��5�"5 �)������ �J�6 ���,�

���������������������� �����5�6 58)����K��; /�� �)

��������������������������!�)� ��(�(��<����8$�!5)�(�+B$�J��

�������������������� �;,9���6+�,5$���,;�> �>� ���5�6

����������'������������6+���� � �,��4�5�,�:�F��� ��

����������*���������,� ��,�:� 5 �9,��5�6+������8�5�6+,;

����������.��������� -��5/+�>��,�8���8�5�6+,;� -

����������1����������,5,��;���,�8���8�5�6+,;� -����-,6

����������0����������,�: ��,5��� �,++ 4�8� ����,�:� -

����������������������� ��,�5,+)

��������������������������!�)�(��@<��3�++�%%

��������������������������!�)� ��(�(��<����8�4��6,��+>,�

���������������������,�4����8>���,�,5>,)

��������������������?)����� 4$���,;�,�9�>�: �����6-6,++:$

����������'����5$�4��5�>,58� �,�:����6-6�;���>�$�� 4

����������*���,� ����,+����G

����������.����������)��������/�5���,58� -���,+����)

����������1���������?)����# ����/�5���,58� -���;$� 9,:)

����������0�����,K��4�,���4,��> �>� ��,:)

���������������������������5��: ��,4,5�� -�,�:�;���>��,

���������������,�����8���4����: �5��+-�,�8�,�:

��������������5��5����,/��� -��2�4�$� ��5��,��: �

���������������,/��,+5�,8:�8��65��8G

���������������������)����� ��,���5�6,++)����;,:��,/�

,>���.

Page 60: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � �

=�������������������������������������������������������������������������

�����������������������������������

��������������,+� ��,8�,�6 �/�5�, ��4���,; �$������,;

��������������� ���5�)

��������������������?)�����,; �$�: ���� 9�� �(�����

���������������,; �G

����������'����������)���� ���+:$�:��)

����������*���������?)������8��,�4,��6 �6�5��>��2�4�G

����������.����������)����!,:��$�:��)

����������1���������?)����� �: ��5�6,++�4�,����6 ����� -

����������0����,�6 �/�5�, ��4�5�G

���������������������)����� )

��������������������?)����� 4�,� ��@,695�+�(�5,J��$�8

��������������: ��9� 4�4� �����G

���������������������)����� )

��������������������?)����� 4�,� ����8��� �,5 G

����������'����������)����� �K�9� 4�4� �����)

����������*���������?)����� 4�,� ��,�:�,4,5������ ��: �5

����������.����,5� -�,�:��2�4���/�� ���5�>,58�>�B ;

����������1���;,>�>G

����������0����������)�������,/��� �9� 4+�8>��,����� �

����������������;�� -��2�4���6�� + >:)

��������������������?)����( �: ���,/��� �9� 4+�8>�� -��6,+�8

��������������/8� G

���������������������)������88�K��,:��,)�����,8����,/�

��������������� �9� 4+�8>�� -�4�,��2�4���6�� + >:���,

=�������������������������������������������������������������������������

,>���1

Page 61: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � ������������������������������������

������������������ ����;�)

��������������������?)�����9,:$�4�:�8 �K�: ���E�+,�� �;�

��������������H�6,+�8�/8� H$� �������� -�: �5

��������������9� 4+�8>�)

����������'����������)������8 �K�9� 4�4�,�: ��;�,���:

����������*���H�6,+�8�/8� H)

����������.���������������3�:�8 �K�: ���E�+,�� �;��4�,

����������1���: ��,5��,+9�>�,� �)

����������0���������?)����3�++$�4�,�8 ����,�;�,�� �: �G

��������������# �����;�8� ��86,���,5+�5���: �5�,��4�5

���������������,�: ���,8�� ;��8�,� -�4�,���4,��,+9�>

��������������,� �)

���������������������)����3�++$�H�6,+�8�/8� H�;>��5�-�5

�������������� �6�,�>�>�����B��� -�/8� �;,>��)

����������'���������?)������8�� 4����,�,66 ;�+���8G

����������*����������)������8 �K�9� 4)�������� ���

����������.���;�$���,;���5����5����,�/,5�:� -

����������1����6��F���� �8 �)

����������0���������?)�����5��: ��,4,5�� -�,�:���6�

���������������6��F�����,��2�4��4,�����>G

���������������������)����� )

��������������������?)�����5��: ��,4,5�� -�,�:�6,;�5,�B ;

��������������,��+6, ������8�������2�4���6�� + >:G

���������������������)����� )

=�������������������������������������������������������������������������

�����������������������������������

��������������������?)����� 4�,� ��6 ;���8��6,+�8�/8�

��������������B ;�>�/8� �,��+6, ��G

,>���0

Page 62: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � ����������������������)����� ��,���9� 4� -)

����������������������������,;�� ��,:�>���:�8 �K� 5�8

����������'����E�$���,;��,:�>���8 �K�9� 4)

����������*���������?)�����-�6 �5��$�K�� �������� -

����������.���: �5�9� 4+�8>�$��5$���,;�� ��E��6�>�: ��

����������1������ �� ;��6��)

����������0���������������� 4�,� ��>,;��,��+6, ��G

���������������������)�������,/��� �9� 4+�8>�� -�4�,

���������������2�4�K��8 �>)

��������������������?)����� 4�,� ��4�,���:��,/��8 ����

������������������,�G

���������������������)�������,/��� �9� 4+�8>�� -�4�,���:

����������'����,/��8 ���������,��,����� ����;�)

����������*���������?)���������,�: ���,/��� �9� 4+�8>�

����������.��� 5�: ��6,�K�5�6,++G

����������1����������)������8 �K�9� 4�-���9��4�������,�

����������0��� 5�88�K�9� 4�������,�$���8 �K�9� 4�� 4)

��������������������?)����( $��� ��5�4 58�$��5$�: ���,/�

��������������� �9� 4+�8>��,�� �,�:��6�� + >:��,��2�4�

������������������I����,�6 55�6G

���������������������)���������� ����;�$��,��

��������������6 55�6)

=�������������������������������������������������������������������������

�����������������������������������

��������������������?)�����8�: ���,/����6��9� 4+�8>������

���������������,�G

���������������������)������8 �K�9� 4�4����5���88� 5�88

��������������� $���8 �K�9� 4�� 4)

����������'���������?)����( $����$��5$�: ��4 �+8�K��,/�

,>����

Page 63: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � �����������*���,�:�,�+:� �9� 4�4����5� 5�� �,�:� -�: �5

����������.���6+����,5�����>��2�4���6�� + >:I����,

����������1���6 55�6G

����������0����������)������4 �+8��,/��� �8�,)

��������������������?)����( ����� ���+�$����$���:

��������������;>������-5�>�>� ���2�4�K���6�� + >��G

��������������������������!�)� ��(�(��<����J�6� ����- 5;)

���������������������)����3�,�8 �: ��;�,���:�H�-5�>�>HG

��������������������?)����3�++$�;,9�>����� -��2�4�

����������'����6�� + >���4� ���������-� -�5 :,+��

����������*��� 5�� ;�� ��5�9�8� -�+6����>)

����������.����������)�������,/��� �9� 4+�8>���,��2�4�

����������1����,��,�:��5 �5�,5:�5>�����,�:��>)����8��

����������0����,/��� �9� 4+�8>��,� ��4�,��2�4�K�

���������������6�� + >:��)��( ����,/��� �9� 4+�8>��,� �

��������������4� �6 �+8����8 �>�4�,)

��������������������?)�����-��2�4���,8��6�� + >��

��������������6 �6�5��>��6,+�8�/8� $�+�K���,:$�,�8���5�

��������������4,��� ;��+�>,++:%�5 �6�8���5������,

=������������������������������������������������������������������������'

�����������������������������������

���������������6�� + >:$�,��,��,���+,4:�5$�4 �+8�: �

�������������� �����,�������� -��,��:�,�:� ��5��58

���������������,5:�4 �+8�5�F�5�����5�,�+6����>� 5

���������������,:;��� -�,�5 :,+:G

����������'����������)������%%

����������*���������������!�)� ��(�(��<����J�6� ����- 5;)

����������.���������?)����# ��;,:�,��4�5����F��� �)

����������1����������)������4++�,��4�5����F��� �)���

,>����

Page 64: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � �����������0���4 �+8�� ��,/��,��,��4�5� ��,�F��� ���

�����������������,��5,6$�: ��,5��,�9�>�- 5�6 ;�+�E�+�>,+

��������������,�,+:��� -�,���, ��4��5��: ��,5�� �+:

��������������>/�>�,�/,>����:� ��6,+�-,6��,�5�$��

��������������K��� �� ���+�� �>/��,��,��4�5� ��,

��������������F��� �)

����������'���������?)����3�++$�+��;��5��,��$����$

����������*���;,:�����6,��;,9���6+�,5�5�- 5�: �$��5)

����������.�����������������K���,:��,��2�4���,�

����������1����6�� + >:�- 5�6,;�5,�B ;�,��+6, ���,�8

����������0����,��6�� + >:����,���8$�,�8�,�6+��� -

��������������: �5����;,9�>����� -��,��6�� + >:�4� �

���������������������-� -��,:�>����5�,�5 :,+:� 5�,

��������������+6����>�,>5��;��)��3 �+8���5�����+�>,+

��������������+,�+:G

��������������������������!�)� ��(�(��<����J�6� ���

=������������������������������������������������������������������������*

�����������������������������������

��������������������- 5;)

���������������������)����3�:�8 �K�: ���E�+,��; 5��6+�,5+:

��������������4�,�: ��,5��5:�>� ��,:)

��������������������?)������� �>����4,��5:�>� ���

����������'���6+�,5)���9,:$�+��;��5:�,>,�)

����������*�����������������K���,:����6-6,++:$�,�8��

����������.���8 �K�9� 4�-�����,56�+,5���:���,

����������1���6+��� -�: �5�� 5�� $����( �:����8�6,;�5,

����������0���B ;�,��+6, ���4�6��4�5�����J�6� �,

���������������,��� 5�,��,������8�>��:��2�4�)6 ;$�,�8

��������������( �:�;,8������ -�������6�� + >���4� �

,>����

Page 65: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � ������������������5�,�+6����>�,>5��;��� 5�4� ���,:�>

��������������,�5 :,+:)��3 �+8�( �:����+,�+��- 5�8,;,>��

��������������- 5����� -�����,���8��6�� + >:�

����������'����2�4�G

����������*����������)����3�++$�( �:K��,�6+��� -����-5;$

����������.���� ���,;�� �> �>� �8�6����4�,�9�8� -

����������1���,8/6����;>�� 5�;>��� �>/�� �( �:��

����������0����,56�+,5�656�;�,�6��$�: ��,5��,�9�>�- 5

���������������5/+�>�8��- 5;, �)

��������������������?)�����9,:)������$����,8� -�( �:�4�

��������������4++�;,9���6 ;�,�:�&)

���������������������)�����9�����,:$�: ��,5��,�9�>�- 5�,

��������������+�>,+�6 �6+�� �� -�;��$�� 4���;>��,8/���,

=������������������������������������������������������������������������.

�����������������������������������

��������������6+�����,��,56�+,5�-,6��,�5��4� �

��������������9� 4�>����8�,+�)����� 58�5� �,��4�5��,

��������������F��� �$���4 �+8��,/�� ���8:�����,����

��������������F��� �$����-+���� 5:� -�����,��

����������'�����- 5������ ,����--6�$�����5 5�,5� -

����������*���5�6 58)����;>���,/�� �+ 9�- 5� ��5��5 5

����������.���,5)����4 �+8�,+� ��,/�� ���8:�4�,���

����������1����,56�+,5�6+�����8 �>)����;>���,/��

����������0�����8:�4�,� ��5��5 �5�,5:�5>�����

��������������6 ;�,�:���F��� ��4� � 4���� ���5>��

��������������;>���,/����- 5����4 �+8��/���6 �6�/��,�8

����������������9�,� ��,��4�5�>�,�F��� ��+9���,)

��������������������?)����3��,5��8 �>����%%� �/ ��+:$

��������������: ���,/�����5>�� � �J�6�-�K��( �:)

,>����

Page 66: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � �����������'���3�,���,;��,:�>�,���;�>$�,5>���8 $������,

����������*���/,+8�,�8���8�>��,�����++�6�,+

����������.����5 ��5:$��,���� �+:���- 56�,�+����8�5

����������1�������,����,K�����+,6�$�,�8��,���5���

����������0���,�6+�,5�6,��� -��-5�>�;��)

���������������������)������,��4�5�8����F��� �� ���

������������������ -�;:�,�+:�,+5�,8:)���K�� ����

��������������5�6 58)

���������������������������-�: ��4,�$�4��6,��,�9���

��������������5�� 5�5� �5�,8���,69)

=������������������������������������������������������������������������1

�����������������������������������

��������������������?)����# �5��,�;��� �;����5��� ���$

���������������5$�4,���,�: �����8�8�; 5�����6-6��,�8

���������������,�: ��4�5����6+�,5$�,�8��,�: ��4 �+8��,/�

�������������� �%%

����������'����������)����� $��� +8�: ���,��� 58�5�- 5

����������*���;��%%���,;�> �>� �5���,���� �6�$�J����

����������.���4��,5����8�5�,�8�>��%%��� +8�: ���� 58�5

����������1��� �,8/���,�6+�����,��,56�+,5���, �$

����������0�����4 �+8��,/�� ���8:�����,������F��� �$

�����������������-+���� 5��� -�����,������- 5����

���������������)()� ,����--6�$���4 �+8��,/�� ���8:���

���������������5 5�,5� -�5�6 58$���;>����8:� ��5��5 5

��������������,5$���4 �+8��,/�� ���8:����6+,;�� -���

���������������,��$���4 �+8��,/�� �5:� ���8�5�,�8

����������'�����5��6 ��$���4 �+8��,/�� �5:� ���8�5�,�8

����������*�������6�� + >:��,�� ;� ���4,��5:�>�

����������.���,��+:�����,���� $���4 �+8�5:�

,>����

Page 67: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � �����������1�����8�5�,�8�4����5���5��4�5�� ��5

����������0����5 �5�,5:�5>������8����,�����

��������������F��� �$�,�8���- 5����6 �+8�,��4�5���

��������������F��� �)����6,�K�,��4�5�: �5�F��� ������

��������������,��5,6$��8 ���K��,/��,��;�+�

���������������5,>�- 54,58�H#��H� 5�H� H�,��4�5)

��������������������?)����3�++$�,���;�>��,�,++�: �5

=������������������������������������������������������������������������0

�����������������������������������

��������������5�/�4� -�����5 5�,5�,�8�: �5�5�/�4� -���

��������������,��+6, �� -���� ,����--6��,�8�: �5

��������������5�/�4� -�,++�� ��� ��5�8 6�;�����,�: �

��������������J���;�� ��8��86,�8��,��4,��,�/,+8

����������'���,�8�8�+:%��- 56�,�+���,���8�5>��4�

����������*���5�>,58� �,��6�� + >:��,�4,��6+�,5+:

����������.����-5�>�>� ���,��,���5>�$�4 �+8�: �5

����������1���,��4�5�5�;,������,;�G

����������0����������)������,��4�5�8����F��� �� ���

������������������ -�;:�,�+:)

��������������������?)����� 4�+ �>��,/��: �������,��,��

��������������+,4:�5$��5G

���������������������)����# ��9� 4�� 4�+ �>$�,�+�,��%%

��������������������?)����7 ��,69�%%

����������'����������)����%%�; 5���,���0�:�,5�)

����������*���������?)������8�� 4�;,�:��,���6,�����,/��: �

����������.���+>,�8G

����������1����������)�������,/��+>,�8�,���;��5� -���;)

����������0���������?)����� 4�;,�:���H,���;��5� -���;HG

���������������������)����?���,�-�4)

,>���'

Page 68: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � ���������������������?)����! 5���,���0G

���������������������)���� 5 �,�+:�� )

��������������������?)����! 5���,���0G

���������������������)����!,:��)

=�������������������������������������������������������������������������

�����������������������������������

��������������������?)�����,/��,�:� -�� ����,���6,���

��������������8�,+�4��,���-5�>�;���6+,;G

���������������������)�������:�>���5,++:�8�,+�4�

���������������-5�>�;���6+,;�)

����������'���������?)����� �+8�: ���++�;��,� �����6,���

����������*����,�: ���,/��������/ +/�8�4�G�������,;�>

����������.������6,���)

����������1���������������!�)� ��(�(��<����J�6 �)

����������0���������������� �K�,��4�5����F��� �$�K�

���������������������5/+�>�8)

��������������������������C�������������������(3��)D

��������������������������!�)�(��@<�������,;�� -����6,���

��������������������,5���5/+�>�8G

��������������������������!�)� ��(�(��<��#��)����8�K�

����������'����������,5,��;��)�������,��0%:�,5��,��

����������*���������+,4:�5�,� ��� -����+,5>���+,4�-5;�)

����������.���������3�:�8 �K�4�����8� �> � /�5���G

����������1���������������!�)�(��@<�������;�� �;������

����������0������������>�/�5:��/,�/��,� ��,�+ � -�����

����������������������>�)

��������������������������!�)� ��(�(��<����8 �K���9�� )

��������������������������# ��,5��,�9�>�,�5�,++:��;�+�

��������������������F��� ���,�8 ���K��,/��,��;�+�

,>���*

Page 69: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � ���������������������,��4�5)

=�������������������������������������������������������������������������

�����������������������������������

���������������������)����#��$�: ��,5��,�9�>�,�F��� �

���������������,�8 ���K��,/��,��;�+��H#��H� 5�H� H

��������������,��4�5)

��������������������������!�)� ��(�(��<����8����,

����������'����������:� ��6,+$�,�8������� �,���E��5)

����������*���������?)�����,/��: ���/�5�;��4��!5)���5�

����������.���3���+�5G

����������1����������)������8 �K���9����/�5�;���;$�� )

����������0���������?)�����8�: ���/�5����,9�4���;G

���������������������)���� ���+:$�:��)

��������������������?)����� �: ���,/��,�:����6-6

��������������5�6 ++�6 ��,�� �4����: ���� 9��4���;G

���������������������)����� )

��������������������?)�����,/��: ���/�5��++�8�,�:���5/6��

����������'��� ��2�4�� 5�,�:� -�����2�4������G

����������*����������)�������-,5�,����9� 4$����,/��� )

����������.���������?)�����,/��: ��������6+�8�8� ��,

����������1����++�>��,�;���- 5��2�4��%%

����������0����������)�������-,5�,��%%

��������������������?)����%%� �� 5 �9,��5�� ��)

���������������������)�������-,5�,����9� 4$����,/��� )

��������������������?)�����8�!5)�3���+�5��/�5�6 ���+�4�

��������������: �$� �������� -�: �5�5�6 ++�6 �$�4�

��������������5�>,58� �,�:�������6 �6�5��>��2�4�G

=�������������������������������������������������������������������������

,>���.

Page 70: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � �

�����������������������������������

���������������������)�������;>���,/�$������4 �+8��

��������������5�6,++����8�,+��,����;�)

��������������������?)����3 �+8�: ���,/��,9���,�:

��������������6 ��;� 5,�� ���� ��� -�� ���6 �/�5�, ��G

����������'����������)���� 5 �,�+:�� )

����������*���������?)����3 �+8�: ��9����,�:� ��5�5�6 58�

����������.��� -�� ���6 �/�5�, ��G

����������1����������)������,;�� �,��>�� ��,9�5� -��� ��

����������0���6 �/�5�, ��$�� ����,��4�5�4 �+8����� )

��������������������?)����3 �+8�� ���6 �/�5�, ����,/�

�������������������5�-+�6�8���,�:��++�>�5�6 58���,�: �

��������������;>��9���G

���������������������)�����9�����,:$� �;:�9� 4+�8>�$��

����������������/�5��++�8�,�:���5/6��� ��2�4�)

����������'���������?)����3�++$���8 �K���9��,�4,��;:

����������*���F��� �)

����������.���������������!:�F��� ��4,�$��5$�-�: ��88

����������1����,/��,�6 �/�5�, ��4����5� ���5�3���+�5

����������0���4��5�>,58� ��2�4�$�4 �+8���,/������

��������������5�-+�6�8� ��: �5��++�>�5�6 58�G

���������������������)���� 5 �,�+:�� $���6,�����4 �+8

���������������,/�������,�;� 5��� 5�6 �/�5�, �)

��������������������?)�����8�: ���/�5�6 ;��8 4�� ��+ 58,

�������������� �;���4��,�: ���-5 ;��2�4�G

=�������������������������������������������������������������������������

�����������������������������������

���������������������)����� ) ,>���1

Page 71: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � �

��������������������?)�����8�: ���/�5�;,9��,�:

��������������5��5����, �� �,�:��,5:��,�: ��6,�

��������������5�6,++�4��5�>,58� ��2�4�� 5��

����������'����6�� + >��G

����������*����������)����� ��,���5�6,++)

����������.���������������!�)� ��(�(��<����J�6� ����- 5;)

����������1���������?)�������;��5���5,����,)���,/��: �

����������0����/�5��� 9��� �,�:��58��,5:�4��5�>,58�

���������������2�4�K���6�� + >��G

���������������������)����� ��,���5�6,++�,����;�)

��������������������?)�����8�: ���/�5�;���4��,�: ��

���������������,;�8�(�������+��9G

���������������������)������8 �K�9� 4�4� �����)

����������'���������?)����3�5��: ���/�5��6+�8�8���,�:

����������*������������+,�� -��2�4��,��,�6 ���+,�� 5

����������.���,�:� ��5�5��5����, ��,�����>��/ +/�8

����������1���4�����6 ;�,�:G

����������0����������)����� ��,���9� 4� -�,����;�)

��������������������?)�����-�: ��4�5���6+�8�8� ���,

�����������������������+,��,��,�6 ���+,�� 5�,8/� 5�

���������������2�4�$�4 �+8�: ���,/��6 �����8� ��,� 5

��������������4 �+8�: ���,/���,8� ��,/��6 �����8� ��,G

���������������������)������8 �K�9� 4�4����5���4 �+8��,/�

=�������������������������������������������������������������������������

�����������������������������������

���������������,8� �6 ����� �� 5�� $�,�8���8 �K�9� 4

��������������-���4 �+8��,/��6 �����8� 5�� )

��������������������?)�����,/��: ���/�5������,����������+,�

��������������- 5��2�4�G ,>���0

Page 72: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � �

����������'����������)������8 �K�9� 4$���;>���,/�)���

����������*���;>��� ��,/�$���8 �K�9� 4)

����������.���������?)����� 4�,� �$�88�: ���/�5����,9�

����������1���,�: ���,�"5,���+�:G

����������0����������)������88��,/�� ��� 5�4 ��� ��

��������������6 �/�5�, ���4���;)

��������������������?)����3��5�>,58� ��2�4�G

���������������������)����#��)

��������������������?)������8�4�,�4�5�����6 ����� -

��������������� ���6 �/�5�, ��G

����������'����������)������%%

����������*���������������!�)� ��(�(��<����9�8�,�8�,��4�5�8)

����������.���������������!�)�(��@<���K;�� 55:)

����������1����������)������8���4++�J���,��4�5��,>,�$

����������0���- 5�6 �/����6�$���8 �K�9� 4����8�,+��,

������������������ ����;�)

��������������������?)����� 4�,� ��7�5,+8�(,�+�:G

���������������������)������8 �K�9� 4�4� �����)

��������������������?)����3,:���(;�G

���������������������)������8 �K���9����/�5��,8�,

=������������������������������������������������������������������������'

�����������������������������������

��������������6 �/�5�, ��4��3,:���(;��,� ���2�4�)

����������������8�3,:���(;����,�3,5��5�"5 �)��%� ���

��������������, 5��:�,�8$���5�- 5�$�,�:�6 �/�5�, ���

��������������88��,/��4���;�4 �+8�����5/+�>�8)

����������'���������?)����� 4�,� ���,/8�� +�5G

����������*����������)������,;�� ���5��4� �����)����,;

����������.���J���� ���5�) ,>����

Page 73: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � �

����������1���������������# ��;>��5�-5����;:�5�6 ++�6 �

����������0���,�8��++�;��4� �����)����,;�� ���5��4� ���

���������������)

��������������������?)�����-�: ��,5��� ���5��4� �����$��

��������������4++�� �> �,�:�-�5��5)

��������������������������� 4�,� ��,��,��,��!,�G

���������������������)������8 �K�9� 4�4� �����)

����������'���������?)����� 4�,� ��� �>����$�4��( �:G

����������*����������)������8 �K�9� 4�4� �����)

����������.���������?)������55:� �56�$�-5 ;� ,5,; ��

����������1���2,6 ;G

����������0����������)������8 �K�9� 4�4� �����)

��������������������?)����� 4�,� ���8���� +�:G

���������������������)����� �K�9� 4�4� �����)

��������������������?)������5��� 9G

���������������������)������8 �K�9� 4�4� ���5��� 9��)

��������������������?)�����K����5��� 9� �)

=������������������������������������������������������������������������*

�����������������������������������

���������������������)������:�6 �/�5�, �����,/���,8�4�

����������������5��� 9� ��4 �+8�����5/+�>�8)

��������������������?)�����9,:)��3�++$�: ��9� 4�4� ���5�

��������������� 9� ���G

����������'����������)����#��$���8 )

����������*���������?)�����,/��: ���/�5�8�6����8��2�4�

����������.�����6�� + >���4���;G

����������1���������������!�)� ��(�(��<��� �K�,��4�5���

����������0���������F��� �)

����������������������������,;���5�6�>��;�� � ,>����

Page 74: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � �

��������������������,��4�5)

��������������������������C�������������������(3��)D

��������������������?)�����8�: ���/�5���6 ;��,4,5�� -�,�:

���������������5 �+�;��4���,:; �8�� , K��4 59�,��4�

����������'���5�>,58� ��,����- 5��2�4�G

����������*����������)����� ��,���5�6,++�,����;�)

����������.���������?)����� ��� 5 �9,��5�� ���;,�,�

����������1����,���6 ����+$� ��5��,��: �5��+-G

����������0����������)�������5��,5��,���;��5� -��,��

���������������� �+�������+,4�-5;)

��������������������?)����3,����5��,�:��,56�+,5�5�,� �

��������������4�:��2�4�K���,���,��+6, ���4�5���

���������������,�8+�8��:� 5 �9,��5�� ��G

���������������������)����3�++$�+9�����,8$�>���5,++:$��

=������������������������������������������������������������������������.

�����������������������������������

��������������8 �K�8 ��,����5 ��6� ��4 59$�,��,�>���5,+

��������������;,�5)

��������������������?)�����8�: ������,�:��>�45 �>� 5

��������������-,�+:�4��!5)�� , K��4 59G

����������'����������)�����9�����,:$����,/��� �9� 4+�8>�� -

����������*������4 59�,����;�$�,�8�8 �K�5�6,++��/�5

����������.�������>�,�:��>�-,�+:�4��)

����������1���������?)����3,����5���/�5�,�;��4���

����������0���!5)�� , �4,��� �+ �>�5��;�+ :�8��:�!�+B�5

������������������$� �������� -�: �5�9� 4+�8>�G

���������������������)��������9����88�+�,/��,-�5�,

��������������6�5,����5 8� -�;�)

��������������������?)������8�4��5��88����> � �4 59G ,>����

Page 75: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � �

���������������������)�������,/��� �8�,)

����������'���������?)����� �: ���,/��,�:�9� 4+�8>��,��

����������*���4�:�!5)�� , �+�-� 5�%%

����������.����������)����� )

����������1���������?)�����-�: ��4 �+8�J���+��;��-����;:

����������0���F��� �$���4 �+8�,��5�6,��)

��������������������������!�)� ��(�(��<��3�,�4,����

��������������������F��� �G

��������������������������!�)�(��@<����4,��> �>� �-���

�����������������������F��� �)

��������������������?)�����8�: ���,/��,�:�9� 4+�8>��,��

=������������������������������������������������������������������������1

�����������������������������������

��������������4�:�!5)�� , �+�-� 5�4����5� 5�� ����4,�

���������������5;�,�8G

���������������������)����� )

��������������������?)�����9,:)��( �: ���,/��� �9� 4+�8>�$

����������'����5$����$� -�,�:� -�����,���,��+6, ��

����������*���- 5��2�4�)6 ;G

����������.����������)����� �,����;�$�� )

����������1���������?)����� 4�,� ��4��5�>,58� �,�:� -

����������0������5,8�;,59� 5�6 �:5>��,��+6, ��G

���������������������)����� $�� ���4�,� �/�5)

��������������������?)�����,/��: ���/�5���,58� -�,�6 ;�,�:

��������������6,++�8�@� �:�6$�@%�%�%(%#%�%�G

���������������������)������,;�� ���5��,����;�)

��������������������?)����# ��,5��� ���5��4����5� 5��

����������'���: ���,/���/�5���,58� -�G

����������*����������)����#�,�)��#�,�$���8 �K���9���9� 4 ,>����

Page 76: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � �

����������.���,����;�)����,;�� ���5�)��3�,�8 ���:

����������1���8 G

����������0���������?)����3�++$�-�: ��8 �K�9� 4�4�,���:

��������������8 �,�8�: ��8 �K�9� 4�4� ���:�,5�$����

���������������,K��: �5�,��4�5)

���������������������)�����++�5>�$��,K��-��)

��������������������?)����3� �5�6 ;;��8�8��,��2�4��> �

��������������!�+B�5������- 5���5��,���4 59G

=������������������������������������������������������������������������0

�����������������������������������

���������������������)�������5 �,�+:���>>���8�)

��������������������?)������8�4,���,���>>�� �

��������������6 ;;��6,�8���45�>G

���������������������)���� 5 �,�+:�� )

����������'���������?)������8$�-�: ��6,��5�6,++$�4� �88

����������*���: ��6 ;;��6,��4��,��2�4��6 �6�5��>

����������.���: �5�5�6 ;;��8, �G

����������1����������)������8 �K�5�6,++)

����������0���������?)�����8�: ���/�5�;���4���+

��������������"�5����G

������������������������������9�: ��;>���,/���,8��,

��������������: ����/�5�;��4���;���- 5�)

���������������������)������8 �K���9����/�5�;��4���;)

��������������������?)�����9,:$�,�8�: ���,8�: ��8 �K�9� 4

����������'���4� ���8��� �,5 ��I�6 55�6G

����������*����������)����� 55�6)

����������.���������?)������8�: ��8 �K�9� 4�4� �@,695�+

����������1���(�5,J����I�6 55�6G

����������0����������)����� 55�6) ,>����

Page 77: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � �

��������������������?)����� 4�,� ����--5�:��5�8���G

���������������������)������8 �K�9� 4�4� �����)

��������������������?)�����5��: ��,4,5�� -�4����5� 5��

�������������� 5 �9,��5�� ���,66���8�,�:�� 69�-5 ;

���������������2�4�G

=�������������������������������������������������������������������������

�����������������������������������

���������������������)������4 �+8��,/��� �9� 4+�8>�� -��,)

��������������������?)����3�5��: ���/�5�,�9�8� ��/,+�,�

��������������- 5� 5 �9,��5�� �������/�� ����,��2�4�

���������������,8G

����������'����������)����� ��,���5�6,++$�� )

����������*���������?)�����8�: ���/�5�����,�/8� ��,�+�8

����������.���: �� ���+�/���,�,�6 ;�,�:�6,++�8�2��,+

����������1����,,�4,���-5�>�>��� ���2�4�G

����������0����������)��������/�5���,58� -�2��,+��,,)

��������������������?)�����5��: ��,4,5�� -�,�:� -���

���������������++�>���,� 5 �9,��5�� ����5�����8�

���������������2�4��- 5���5/6��G

���������������������)����� �;:�9� 4+�8>�$����,/����/�5�����

��������������,�:���6���++)

����������'���������?)�����8�: ���,/��,�:�8�6��� ���4�

����������*���,�:� ��5��,5��5� 5�,�� 6,��,� 5 �9,��5

����������.���� ���6 �6�5��>�����++�>�� ��2�4�G

����������1����������)����� ��,���6 �+8�5�6,++)

����������0���������?)�����9,:)��3������5�-�5� �H�2�4�H$

����������������;�,��%%

���������������������)����# ��;�,��,++� -�� �������)

��������������������?)����� 55�6) ,>���'

Page 78: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � �

���������������������)������8����,��4�5��$�� ��,��

��������������6 �+8�5�6,++)

=�������������������������������������������������������������������������

�����������������������������������

��������������������?)�����8�!5)�3���+�5�,+9�4��: ��,

��������������,++�,� ��,�:��-5�>�;����5 �+�;�� 5��,��

��������������5>���,��2�4�G

���������������������)����� ��,���5�6,++)

����������'���������?)������8�: ���,5+�5���-�8�: ���,/�

����������*�����/�5���,58� -�,�6 ;�,�:�6,++�8�2��,+��,,I

����������.������,�6 55�6G

����������1����������)����� ��,���6,��5�6,++�,���

����������0���;�)

��������������������?)����� �: ��9� 4�,���8/8�,+��,;�8

��������������7�5,+8���4�G

���������������������)����7�5,+8���4�G

��������������������?)����#��)

���������������������)����# ��;�,�����- 5;�5����� -��;�

����������'���3,5��5G

����������*���������?)����#��)

����������.����������)����3�++$���9� 4�����,;�$������8 �K

����������1���9� 4��;���5� �,++:)

����������0���������?)����� 4�,� ��"5,���+�:G

���������������������)����3�++$��� +8�: ��,+5�,8:����,8�,

��������������-�4��+��� ���6 �/�5�, ���4���;)

��������������������?)�������5��,��� ����+��� ��

��������������6 �/�5�, ��$�8 �: ��9� 4�,�:��>� -

��������������!5)��+�:G

,>���*

Page 79: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � �

=�������������������������������������������������������������������������

�����������������������������������

���������������������)����� )

��������������������?)����� 4�,� ��7�5,+8�(,�+�:$� -

����������������,+����G

���������������������)��������/�5���,58� -��;�,�8���/�5

����������'�����,58� -���,+����)

����������*���������?)����# ���,8��,��,5+�5)

����������.���������������� 4�,� ��" 6,�����,56�G

����������1����������)������/�5���,58� -�" 6,�����,56�)

����������0���������?)����� 4�,� ��3,:�����B��>,��5)� 5

��������������(5)G

���������������������)����3�++$���9� 4�����,;�$���8 �K

��������������9� 4���;���5� �,++:)

��������������������?)����� 4�,� ����5��"5,�8 �G

���������������������)������/�5���,58� -��;)

����������'���������?)����� ��5�����>�5G

����������*����������)������/�5���,58� -��;)

����������.���������?)����(� 5�+��G

����������1����������)����(� 5�+��$�(% %�%�%�%�%�%�%�G

����������0���������?)����� 55�6)

���������������������)��������/�5���,58� -�)

��������������������?)����� ++:4 8)6 ;$�����9�: �

����������������-�8� ��,5+�5)

���������������������)����# ��,�9�8�;��,� ���,$�,�8��

��������������,��4�5�8��,+5�,8:)

=�������������������������������������������������������������������������

,>���.

Page 80: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � ������������������������������������

��������������������?)����� 55�6)

��������������������������� 4�,� ��">��G

���������������������)��������/�5���,58� -�)

��������������������?)����(��� 5;,6G

����������'����������)����(%�%�%(%�%�%!%�%�%�%�G

����������*���������?)�����>�)

����������.����������)��������/�5���,58� -�)

����������1���������?)����� 4�,� ��(��� 5;,6�G���K;

����������0���� 55:)

���������������������)������8 �K���9�����,58� -�$

�����������������5�4,:$� �;:�9� 4+�8>��5>��� 4)

��������������������?)����� 4�,� ���5 ��" 4�2���5��G

���������������������)����3�++$��� �+:�9� 4�,� �����6,���

���������������4,��;�� ��8���� ;��6 �/�5�, �� �;�

����������'����5 5� ����8�� � �$������8 �K��,/��,�:

����������*���9� 4+�8>�� -���;$���/�5�;��4����;$���/�5

����������.����,8�,�:�8�,+�>�4����;)

����������1���������?)������8�4�,�6 �/�5�, ��4,����$

����������0����5 5�%%

���������������������)��������5��,5, ��- 5���

��������������8�� � �)

��������������������?)�����9,:)��� �: ���,/��,�:�8�,�4�

����������������:�,5�G

���������������������)������9� 4���:�,5��,�/���5�

=�������������������������������������������������������������������������

�����������������������������������

��������������6,�,+�$�� ;���>�+9���,)

��������������������?)�����5����:�,�6+��� -� 5 �9,��5

,>���1

Page 81: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � ���������������� ��G

���������������������)������8 �K�9� 4)

����������'���������?)����3���� 5 �9,��5�� ���4 �+8

����������*���5��5�����,���4�6+��$�4 �+8�,�6 �-+6�6��69

����������.������5��G

����������1����������)��������9��,K������ 5;,+

����������0����5 6�8�5�� -����,�8�; �� ��5�+,4�-5;�)

��������������������?)����3����: ��4�5��6 �,6�8� 5��� 9�

�������������� �!5)�3���+�5�4��5�>,58� ��2�4�)6 ;$�88

��������������: �����5�5�F�����,�!5)�3���+�5�6 �-5;

�����������������6 �-+6�6��69��,8������5��� 5�88�: �

��������������6 �8�6� ���: �5��+-G

����������'����������)������88�� �6 �8�6� ���;:��+-

����������*�����6,�������6+���6,;�����5 �>��!5)�3���+�5

����������.���,�8����%%������� 5;,+��5 6�8�5�$��4 �+8���

����������1������ ��;� �8 ����6 �-+6�6��69)

����������0���������?)�����9,:$�� �: ��5�+�8� �����-,6

���������������,�!5)�3���+�5��,8�8 ��� ��G

���������������������)������5�+�8� �����-,6��,��4 �+8

��������������������� 5;,+��5 6�8�5�������+,4�-5;�- 5

���������������;� ��,/��8 ���)

��������������������?)����"��: ��6,�K��++�;��4����5� 5

=������������������������������������������������������������������������'

�����������������������������������

��������������� � 8,:$�,��: ������5�$�4����5� 5�� � ��

��������������4,��8 ��)

���������������������)������4 �+8��,:��4 �+8�������� 5;,+

���������������5 6�8�5�������+,4�-5;�- 5�� ����8 ��)

����������'���������?)����"��8 �: ���,/��,�:���5� �,+

,>���0

Page 82: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � �����������*���9� 4+�8>��4�6��4 �+8��86,�� �: ��85�6+:

����������.����,�,�6 �-+6�6��69��,8������5���4��5�>,58

����������1��� ��2�4�G

����������0����������)����3�++$����-,6��$������+,4

��������������-5;���:�4 �+8�� �,��>��,�6+����++�>

����������������;��5� ����6+���4� ��,�6 �-+6�6��69

�����������������>�8 ��$�,�8�����8�5�,�8����6+��

���������������++�>���;��5�4,��,��>��8$�� ��,�;�,���,

��������������6 �-+6�6��69�4,��8 ���%%

����������'���������?)������8�%%

����������*����������)����%%� 5�4 �+8�� 5;,++:��,/������

����������.���8 ��)

����������1���������?)����� 5;,++:$����4�,���,;�,�9�>�: �

����������0���/�5:����6-6,++:��$��5$�: ��8 �� �9� 4�- 5

��������������,�-,6�4����5� 5�� �,�6 �-+6�6��69�4,�

��������������5��G

���������������������)����� �,����� ����;�$���8

��������������� �9� 4)

��������������������?)������8�-���5��4,��,�6 �-+6�- ��8$

=������������������������������������������������������������������������*

�����������������������������������

��������������4�,�4 �+8�������� 5;,+��5 6�8�5�G

���������������������)������4 �+8�> � ����%%���5����,

��������������6 ;;����,�%%������+,4�-5;$��,�8�,+�

��������������4��� ��������)

����������'���������?)����� ����,�6 ;;�����/�5� �,�

����������*���4,/�5�� -�6 �-+6��-5 ;�6+���G

����������.����������)�������:�;>�)

����������1���������������!�)� ��(�(��<��� �K�,��4�5���

,>����

Page 83: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � �����������0���������F��� �$�K���5/+�>�8)

��������������������������C�������������������(3��)D

��������������������?)����� �: ��;,�,��,�:�-+��� 5�,�:

��������������8 6�;����6 �6�5��>��2�4�G

��������������������������!�)� ��(�(��<���;���5� �,++:G

��������������������������!�)�(��@<����������������5�6 58�

����������'��������� 5������5�6 58��- 5� 5 �9,��5�� ���,

����������*������������ --6�������4�# 59)

����������.����������)����� ��,���9� 4� -$�� )

����������1���������?)����� �: ��9� 4� -�,�:��,���>� -

����������0����/�� ���- 5��2�4�G

���������������������)�����9�����,:$���4,��� ��/ +/�8�,�

����������������5��,���6 ����+$� ��5��� �+����5/�8�,�

����������������5��,���6 ����+)

��������������������?)�����5��: ��,4,5�� -�,�:� -���

���������������,56�+,5�� -�,�:� -�� ����,���G

=������������������������������������������������������������������������.

�����������������������������������

���������������������)������4,��� �%%

��������������������������!�)� ��(�(��<������%%

���������������������)������4++�5���,��,>,�$���4,���

���������������/ +/�8�,����5��,���6 ����+$� ��5��� �+�

����������'���4�5�)����8$�,����� ����;�$����,/���

����������*���9� 4+�8>�� -���5��,���,��+6, ��)

����������.���������������!�)� ��(�(��<��!5)�(�+B$�: ��,5�

����������1���������5���,�>�: �5��+-�� 4)

����������0���������������!�)�(��@<���K;�� 55:$���5�)

��������������������������!�)� ��(�(��<���+ ����8�� �:��

��������������������� ;����4�F��� ��)

,>����

Page 84: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � ����������������������)����!,:������88�K�>��,�> 8��>�K�

���������������+���)

��������������������������C ,���)D

����������'���������������!�)� ��(�(��<��� �: ���,/�

����������*���������,�:��>��+��G

����������.���������������!�)�(��@<��#��$���8 )������>/�

����������1���������;��,�;���)��C ,���)D

����������0���������?)����(5$�8 �: ���,/��,�:�9� 4+�8>�� 5

���������������,/��: ��5�/�4�8�,�:� -�����++�>

���������������,�;�����,� 5 �9,��5�� ����5 /8�8�

���������������2�4�������;,�5G

���������������������)����� )

��������������������������!�)� ��(�(��<����J�6 �$�,�9�8

=������������������������������������������������������������������������1

�����������������������������������

��������������������,�8�,��4�5�8)

��������������������?)�����5��: ��,4,5�� -�,�:� -���

����������������5/6����5 /8�8��:� 5 �9,��5�� ��� ��2�4�

�������������������;,�5G

����������'����������)�������,/��� �8�,)

����������*���������?)����C ,���)D

����������.���������������!�)� ��(�(��<��� �: ���,/�

����������1���������,�:��>��+��G

����������0���������������!�)�(��@<��#��)������>/��;��,

��������������������6 ��+�� -�;����$���,;�J�����9�>

���������������������5 �>�������--)

��������������������������!�)� ��(�(��<��� ��>���5� �,+$

��������������������!5)�(�+B$����: ��,5��5�,++:�5���,�>

��������������������: �5��+-�,����� �)

,>����

Page 85: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � �����������'���������������!�)�(��@<����,;�5:�>�� � )

����������*���������������!�)� ��(�(��<����;�,�$�: ��,�9�8

����������.����������;�46��-�����,�����������++�

����������1���������4���+9���5���;����)

����������0���������������!�)�(��@<��C ,���)D

��������������������?)�����5��: ��,4,5�� -�,�:��8/8�,+�

���������������/ +/�8������!���!�+;�8,��,�G

���������������������)���� �5� �,++:$�� $�� �,����� �)

��������������������?)����3����4,�����+,��;��: ���� 9�

�������������� �"5,���+�:G��# ���86,�8�: ���,8�,

=�����������������������������������������������������������������������'0

�����������������������������������

��������������6 ��+�� -�6 �/�5�, ���4���;)��3����4,�

�����������������+,��8�6��� ����+8$��,�: ��6,��5�6,++G

���������������������)������,;�� ���5�)

��������������������?)����3,���; 5���,��,�:�,5�,> G

����������'����������)���� 5 �,�+:)

����������*���������?)����� �: ��5�;�;��5����6 ����� -

����������.����,�6 �/�5�, ��,�,++G

����������1����������)����� )����8�: ��,�9�8�;���,

����������0���,+5�,8:)

��������������������?)������9� 4���88)����,;�5:�>� ���+�

�������������� �5�-5����: �5�5�6 ++�6 �)

���������������������)����# ��,�9�8�;��,�+�,���5���;��

���������������,�F��� �$�� �� 4�: ��,5��,����� �� -

��������������4,��>�;:�;�$�� ���4 �+8�,��5�6,��$�-

����������'���: ��4,�� �,�9�;��� ;��F��� ��$��+�,���,�9

����������*���;��F��� ���: ��88�� �,�9�;��,+5�,8:)

����������.���������?)���������5��,�: ����+��$� ��5��,�

,>����

Page 86: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � �����������1���"5,���+�:�,��2�4�$��,�: ���/�5��,8�,�:

����������0���8�6��� ���4�G

��������������������������!�)� ��(�(��<��# ���,/��,�9�8

���������������������,$�,� ��-/��;��)

���������������������)����# ��,�9�8�;���,�,+5�,8:)

��������������������������!�)� ��(�(��<����8�����,8�� )

���������������������)������8���,��4�5�8��,+5�,8:)��# �

=�����������������������������������������������������������������������'�

�����������������������������������

��������������4++��������5,��65�$�,�8�: ��4++�������

��������������,��4�5)

��������������������?)�����9,:$�-��)

��������������������������!�)� ��(�(��<��!5)�(�+B$���: �5

����������'���������6+������8�>�: ��F��� ��� /�5���

����������*���������6 ;���5G

����������.���������������!�)�(��@<��� $�� $����,/��> �;:

����������1���������� ����,����,/��;,8�� �,�9�F��� ��$

����������0���������,�8���,;�J���5:�>� �6 55��� �8

��������������������!5)���������K��,��4�5��4��;:

��������������������F��� ��)

��������������������������!�)� ��(�(��<���5��: �

��������������������6 ;;��6,�>�4���;��+�65 �6,++:G

��������������������������!�)�(��@<��� $���,;�� )

����������'���������������!�)� ��(�(��<���,���������� ����

����������*����������� ������4� +��;�G

����������.���������������!�)�(��@<��#��)

����������1���������������!�)� ��(�(��<��������

����������0���������(,����> G

��������������������������!�)�(��@<��#��)

,>����

Page 87: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � ���������������������������!�)� ��(�(��<��������5�6 58

��������������������5�-+�6������,9�>� ��;��%%

��������������������������!�)�(��@<���������>�����

��������������������5 ;���E� ����4-�$�4,�>�- 5���

=�����������������������������������������������������������������������'�

�����������������������������������

��������������������4-�� �> �� �+,� 5�,�8�> �� ���

��������������������� ��,+�,�8�%%

��������������������������!�)� ��(�(��<����8����6 �+8��,/�

���������������������,�������,;��5 ;�,�4��9%,�8%,%�,+-

����������'���������,> � ��,/�����8�� � ��,9��)���-���

����������*�����������,�+�� �,���,5�,�8�� � ��� ����

����������.����������+��� ��$����6 �+8��,/���,8�,

����������1���������8�� � ��,9���,����� ���)

����������0���������������!�)�(��@<�����6,��6�� ��,�:

��������������������;�������4,���4��;�$�������6,�K�8

���������������������4��: �$�-�: ���,/��,�8�� � �

���������������������6��8�+�8)

��������������������������!�)� ��(�(��<��3��6 �+8��,/�

��������������������,66 ;; 8,�8��;�J���-��)

����������'���������������!�)�(��@<����,;�> �>� ����: �

����������*��������� ��� +8�- 5�,�;���)

����������.���������������C ,�������5 6��8�>�)D

����������1���������������!�)�(��@<���9,:$���5�$����,/�

����������0��������������,+9�>� ��+ $������> �>�

��������������������6��69� �����4-�$�4� ����������E

��������������������5 ;)����K��,9��,���%;�����5�,9�,�8

��������������������6 ;��5>���,69)

��������������������������!�)� ��(�(��<���9,:)�����E��6�: �

,>���'

Page 88: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � ���������������������� �� ��,/��� ;����4�F��� ��� 5��

=�����������������������������������������������������������������������'�

�����������������������������������

�����������������������8� �> $���6,����4��,5��� ��/�5:

�����������������������:)

��������������������������!�)�(��@<������8�5�,�8$�� ��

���������������������/�5: ��)

����������'���������������!�)� ��(�(��<��( $�K����<0�$�4�

����������*���������4++�����: ���5 ;�+:�,���<���4����4

����������.���������F��� ��)

����������1���������������� �: ��4,�� �6,++�����,69�,

����������0��������������;��5G

��������������������������!�)�(��@<����4++�6,++�: ���,69�,

�������������������������;��5)

��������������������������C��6����,9��<����<0���);)%

����������������������<�'��);)D

��������������������?)�����8�: ���/�5�5�6�/��,�+��5�-5 ;

����������'���(�������,; ��4��5�>,58� ��2�4�

����������*����6�� + >:G

����������.����������)������+��5�-5 ;�(�������,; �G

����������1���������?)����#��)

����������0����������)����� ��,���9� 4� -�,����;�)

��������������������?)�����9,:)

��������������������������!�)�(��@<����5�$�6,��: ��>/��;�

�����������������������-,E���;��5���5�G����4++�-,E�: ��,

��������������������6 �:� -����+��5$�- 5����4�����%%

��������������������- 5����8�� ���� �5�/�4)

=�����������������������������������������������������������������������'�

,>���*

Page 89: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � �

�����������������������������������

���������������������)������8 �K�9� 4�� 4�4��,5��> �>�

�������������� 56���5,���,)

��������������������?)����# ���,/��> �,�-,E������5�G

���������������������)����3��8 )��3�K/��J���> � �%%

����������'���������������!�)� ��(�(��<���K��� �� ;���>

����������*����������,�6,�����8�+/�5�8�;;�8,�+:G

����������.�������������������3����((<���>�)

����������1���������������!�)�(��@<��3�,���4++�8 ��$��

����������0���������4++�6 �����4�� ��5�F��� �����+

��������������������K��8�+/�5�8)

��������������������������!�)� ��(�(��<������-,E���;��5��

��������������������1'1%�100)����8�: ��4++����8� ��,/��

��������������������8�+/�5�8� �!5)���������K�� --6�

��������������������;;�8,�+:)

����������'����������)������4++��5 �,�+:�6 ;�� ����;:

����������*����%;,+$�� �4��4++��,/�� ��,/��� ;� ����5�

����������.���� �)

����������1���������������!�)�(��@<�����;��J���> �,�8�,9�

����������0���������6,5�� -��,)

��������������������������� +8� ��- 5�,�; ;��)

��������������������������C ,�������5 6��8�>�<���<�*��);)%

����������������������<����);)D

��������������������������!�)�(��@<���9,:$�4��,5���,69� �)

���������������������)�����9,:)

=�����������������������������������������������������������������������'�

�����������������������������������

��������������������?)�����9,:) ,>���.

Page 90: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � �

��������������������������� 4$�!5)���������$��,/��: �

��������������+ 9�8�,�,�:� -�����++�>��,�;�����,

�������������� 5 �9,��5�� ����5 8�6�8� ��2�4������

����������'���;,�5�,�,++G

����������*����������)�����9,:$�� $���;��5� ��$�: ��,�9�8�;�

����������.����,$���,��4�5�8��,+5�,8:)

����������1�����������������;��5�4 $���4 �+8�+9�� �� �$

����������0���- 5����5�6 58$��,�4�� 9�,��5�,9�,���<0�$

��������������: ��4�5������ ��8� �6 ;���,69�,���<��$�: �

��������������4�5��+,�$�,�8����-5����>�: ��88$��� �

��������������6 ;�>��,69$�4,��,9��,� ��5��5�,9� -�,� �

������������������ 5����;������ �: ��6 �+8����8�;��,

��������������-,E$�4�6��6 �+8��,/�������������5���

����������'���,8/,�6�)����8�: ��,5��4,��>�;:�;���:

����������*���,�9�>�;��F��� ����,����,/��,+5�,8:

����������.���,��4�5�8)

����������1���������?)����3�,�88�: ��8 � ��5��,5��- 5

����������0������8�� � �G

���������������������)������;��4��;:�, 5��:)

��������������������?)�����8�: ��5�/�4�,�:�8 6�;���G

���������������������)������5�/�4�8�,��4�5��

����������������55 >, 5����5�-+:��,�4�5���5��,5�8��:

��������������!5)�"�5����)

=�����������������������������������������������������������������������''

�����������������������������������

��������������������?)�����8�: ��5�/�4�,�:� ��5

��������������8 6�;���G

���������������������)������5�/�4�8�,��5�-���>;��� -

��������������!5)��+�:K��8�� � ��%%�,6�,++:$���88�� ,>���1

Page 91: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � �

����������'���5�/�4�,�:��>�-5 ;�!5)��+�:K��8�� � �$

����������*����,K��,�;�,9�)����;,:��,/��8�6����8�

����������.���4��;:�, 5��:$����: ��,5��>��>��

����������1����5/+�>�8��- 5;, �$�� ���6,�� �,��4�5�

����������0���,�:�-�5��5)

��������������������?)����( �� ���,5����� �+:���>���,

��������������: ��5�/�4�8G

���������������������)�������� �+:���>���+ 9�8�,�4,�

��������������!5)�"�5����K��,��4�5�� ���55 >, 5��$

��������������,�8���88�;���4��;:�, 5��:)

����������'���������?)�����5��: ��,4,5�$��5$��,�: �5��,;�

����������*�����5�-�5��6�8����++�>��,�;����-5 ;

����������.��� 5 �9,��5�� ��� ��2�4��; 5���,��,�8 B��

����������1���;��G

����������0����������)����� $���,;�� )

��������������������������!�)� ��(�(��<����J�6� ����- 5;)

��������������������?)�����,��: ����9� -�,�:�5�,� �$��5$

��������������4�:�: �5��,;��4 �+8����;�� ��8�; 5���,��,

��������������8 B���;������++�>��,�;����-5 ;

�������������� 5 �9,��5�� ��� ��2�4�G

=�����������������������������������������������������������������������'*

�����������������������������������

���������������������)�������,8�,�-�4�6 �/�5�, ���4�

��������������8--�5����� �+��,� �����6 ;�,�:� /�5�;�$

��������������,�����,/����-�8)

��������������������?)������8�: ����-�8��,���

����������'���6 �/�5�, ��� 9��+,6����4����: ��,�8���5�

����������*���3���+�5�,�8�: ��,�8�"5,���+�:)

����������.����������)�����>�) ,>��'0

Page 92: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � �

����������1���������?)����� 55�6G

����������0����������)���� ���+:�%%���8 �K�9� 4�-���5�

��������������4,��,�: ����+��)

��������������������?)����� �: ���,/��,�:�5�6 ++�6 ��� 4

��������������,�� �,�:� ��5�6 �/�5�, ��G

���������������������)����� )

��������������������?)����� 4$�4��5�>,58� ��%;,+�$�4�5�

����������'���: ��,4,5�� -�,�:��%;,+���,�: ��5�6�/�8

����������*���-5 ;�,�: ���6 �6�5��>��2�4�G

����������.����������)������8 �K�9� 4�,����� ���

����������1���;�)

����������0���������?)����� �: ���,/��5�6 58�� -��%;,+�

���������������,�: ��5�6�/�8G

���������������������)������4 �+8�� �9� 4�,����� ���

��������������;�)

��������������������?)�����5����:�� 5;,++:�9���,���,5� -

��������������: �5�-+��G

=�����������������������������������������������������������������������'.

�����������������������������������

���������������������)������8 �K�9� 4�,����� ���

��������������;�)

��������������������?)�������,8�,�9�8�: ���5�/ ��+:$��5$

��������������4����5� 5�� �: ���,8�,�:��- 5;, �� �

����������'���!5)��,/8�� +�5)

����������*���������������� �: ��5�6,++��,G

����������.����������)����#��$�,�8����,8���4,��K���5��4�

����������1������4,�$�,�8�����>>���8�: ��;>��4,��

����������0���5�-5����;:�5�6 ++�6 �$�,�8�: ��8�6+��8�

��������������8 �� ) ,>��'�

Page 93: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � �

��������������������?)�����9,:)��3 �+8��5�-5����: �5

��������������5�6 ++�6 �$��5$�-����++�: ���,

��������������!5)�� +�5�4,��4��3,5��5�"5 �)G

���������������������)����# ��9� 4$���;,:��,/����,58���

����������'����,;�$������8 �K���9����/�5��,8�,�:

����������*���8�,+�>��4���;$�,+� �>����,;�� ���5�)

����������.���������?)����"��: ��8 ��,/��8�,+�>��4�

����������1���3,5��5�"5 �)I����,�6 55�6G

����������0����������)�����9�����,8$�3,5��5�"5 �)���,

��������������6+��)

��������������������?)�����>�)��3 �+8���5�����,�:�5�,� �

��������������4�:�: �5��,;��4 �+8����;�� ��8����%;,+�$

���������������,�: ��6,����9� -$�-5 ;�3,5��5�"5 �)�

��������������� ;� ���,����G

=�����������������������������������������������������������������������'1

�����������������������������������

���������������������)������8 �K�9� 4)

����������������������������;�,�$���8 �4 59�%%���:�,5���,5

�������������� -�����,;��6 ;�,�:$���:�,5��6+���� -���

��������������-5;$�,�8�� $���6,�K�5�,++:�8�6����

����������'�����6,���� -��5/+�>�)

����������*���������?)����(5$�: ���,8��86,�8��,5+�5�: �

����������.����,8�� �8�,�4��5�>,58� �,�:� -���

����������1�����++�6�,+��5 ��5��� 5��,����- 5

����������0����2�4�I����,�6 55�6G

���������������������)����� �,����� ����;�)

��������������������?)�����8�: ���/�5������,�:� �� ��

��������������,�: ���,�� ����/,+8:� -�� ����,���G

���������������������)����� ��,���9� 4� -) ,>��'�

Page 94: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � �

��������������������?)�����8�: ���/�5��5 /8��,�:

����������'����- 5;, ��,�,++�4��5�>,58� ����/,+8:

����������*��� -�,�:� -�������,���G

����������.����������)����� ��,���9� 4� -)

����������1���������?)����( �K��� ���+���,�: ���,/���

����������0�������,�����: ��8 �K�5�6,++G

���������������������)������8 �K�5�6,++��,/�>��/ +/�;��

��������������4��������,���)����4,��� �����,��

��������������6 ����+)

��������������������?)����� 4$��5$�4���,/��-,E�8�: ��,�6 �:

�������������� -�,�+��5)����8 �K�9� 4�-�: ���,/�

=�����������������������������������������������������������������������*0

�����������������������������������

��������������5�6�/�8�)

���������������������)����3��8 �K��,/���:�)

��������������������?)�����9,:$�6 �+8�: ��-�8� ��-��,K�

��������������,/,+,�+�G

����������'����������)�����++�5>�)��3��4++����: �� �

����������*���� +8)

����������.���������?)������,�9�: �)

����������1���������������C ,�������5 6��8�>�)D

����������0���������?)�����9,:$�,5��: ��4��;�G

���������������������)����#��)

��������������������?)����� �: ���,/�����-,EG

���������������������)����� $���8 �� )���9�����,:$�: �

���������������� �+8��,/������������5��:���58,:� 5��

��������������,8/,�6�)

����������'���������?)������,K��-��$��,K��-��)����4,�

����������*����E��6�>��,�;,:���: ��4 �+8��,/��,����5 ,>��'�

Page 95: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � �

����������.���5�6 ++�6 �� -�� ;�� -�������/���$�,�8

����������1���;,:����,�4,��;:��6 55�6��5���;� �$

����������0���6 ��8�5�>��,���>��������6 ;;��6, �

��������������-5 ;�(�������,; �� 66�55�8�5�+,/�+:

��������������5�6��+:�%%

���������������������)����3�++$�4����88�� 66�5G

��������������������?)����3�++$��,K��4�,���4,��> �>�

��������������,�9�: �$�-5�� -�,++$�-�: ��6,��5�6,++)

=�����������������������������������������������������������������������*�

�����������������������������������

���������������������)����3�++$�: ��,�9�8�;��,� ���,$�,�8

���������������� +8�: ����;,:��,/���� 9��� ��;� �6�$���

����������������8 �K�5�6,++����8�,+��5>��� 4)

��������������������?)����� 4$�4��5�>,58� �4�,�4��,+9�8

����������'���,� ���,5+�5�4,�����6 �-+6� -���5���,�8

����������*���4����5� 5�� � 5 �9,��5�� ��K��� � ���

����������.���5��5�����>��2�4��6 ����8�,�6 �-+6

����������1���4�� ��5�6+���$�����9�: ��;�� ��8��,

����������0���: ���E��6�8�!5)�3���+�5� �8 ����6 �-+6

��������������6��69I����,�6 55�6G

���������������������)����#��)

��������������������?)�����5��: ��,4,5�� -�,�:�6 �-+6� -

����������������5�����4�����2�4��,�8�,�:� -�: �5� 4�

��������������6+���G

����������'����������)����� )

����������*���������������!�)� ��(�(��<��3�,K����

����������.���������5�+�/,�6:� -��,$�!5)�(�+BG

����������1���������������!�)�(��@<������9��> ���

����������0���������4����5� 5�� ��2�4���� �+8��,/������ ,>��'�

Page 96: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � �

��������������������5��5�����8��:� 5 �9,��5�� �������

��������������������-5���+,6�)

��������������������������!�)� ��(�(��<����$����,�,���4

���������������������� 5:��,�: ���,/��K��+�8G

��������������������������!�)�(��@<������,�,�� �J�6 �G

=�����������������������������������������������������������������������*�

�����������������������������������

��������������������������!�)� ��(�(��<��#��$�K�� �J�6 �

�������������������� �5�+�/,�6�)

��������������������������!�)�(��@<���9,:$�� �� �8�- 5���

��������������������5�6 58)

����������'���������?)����!5)���������$�: ���,8��86,�8

����������*����,�: ��,5��� �,4,5�� -�,�:�6 �-+6�

����������.�����4�����2�4��,�8�,�:� -�: �5� ��5�6+���I

����������1������,�6 55�6G

����������0����������)����� �,����� ����;�$�� )

��������������������?)����3�5��: ��,4,5�� -�,�:�6 �-+6���

������������������,�G

���������������������)����� ��,���9� 4� -)

��������������������?)����3 �+8���5�����,�:�5�6 58��9��� -

��������������,�:�6 �-+6�6��69��,�4,��5����:�!5)�3���+�5

����������'��� 5�,�:� ��5�%%

����������*����������)������8 �K�9� 4)

����������.���������?)����3 �+8�: ��+��;��-����;:

����������1���F��� �$��+�,��)

����������0����������������%%�!5)�3���+�5� 5�,�:� ��5

���������������,5��5� 5�,�� 6,�� -�: �5�-5;)

���������������������)������8 �K�9� 4�4�,�5�6 58����5�

��������������;>����) ,>��'�

Page 97: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � �

��������������������?)����# ���86,�8���5��4,��,�6 �-+6

��������������6 ;;��)��� ����,�6 �-+6�6 ;;���;��

=�����������������������������������������������������������������������*�

�����������������������������������

������������������4�# 59� 5�8 ���:�;������+ 58,� 5��

����������������5��,�:��,56�+,5�+ 6, ��- 5���5

��������������;���>�G

��������������������������!�)� ��(�(��<����J�6 �$

����������'���������5�+�/,�6�)

����������*���������������# ��6,��,��4�5����F��� �$���

����������.���������K��� �> �>� �>��;�6��-�5��5)

����������1����������)������,���;����:�;�������4�# 59)

����������0���������?)���������5��,�:��,56�+,5�5�,� ��- 5

���������������,�,���;� �G

���������������������)����! �� -����+,4�-5;����

����������������4�# 59)

��������������������?)����(5$���,;�,�++��6 �-���8�,� �

��������������� ;�� -�: �5��,5+�5���; �:)�����,8�,�9�8

����������'���: ��4����5� 5�� �: ���,8��� 9���4��,�:� -

����������*���: �5�6+����6 �6�5��>��2�4��,�8��

����������.����6�� + >:$�,�8�: �5�5��� ����4,�� �6+,;

����������1����5/+�>�)������,��++����6,��$�: ��,5�

����������0���6+,;�>��5/+�>��4��5�>,58� �,�:� -�� ��

��������������6 ;;��6, ��G

��������������������������!�)� ��(�(��<��#��)

���������������������)����#��)

��������������������?)�����9,:)����,;�> �>� �J����,:�,

������������������ ���,�: ����-�8��,���5��4�5�

,>��''

Page 98: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � �

=�����������������������������������������������������������������������*�

�����������������������������������

�������������� �+:�4 � 66,� ����,�: ���,8��� 9���4�

���������������58��,5���!5)��+�:�,�8�!5)�3���+�5��,

��������������: ��6,��5�6,++�4��5�>,58� ��2�4�I����,

��������������6 55�6G

����������'���������������!�)� ��(�(��<����8 �K�5�6,++��,

����������*������������>������; �:)

����������.����������)������,K��� �;:���; �:)

����������1���������?)����3�,�4,��: �5���; �:G

����������0����������)����3��4++��,/�� ��,/���5�,8

���������������,69)����8 �K�5�;�;��5��E,6+:�4�,����,8�%%

��������������������?)�����9,:)

���������������������)����%%���5��� ���� �4�6���,56�+,5

��������������F��� ��5>��� 4)

��������������������?)����3�++$�+��;��� ���,���4�F��� �$

����������'����5$�,�8�����9����,/��,�9�8�: �������- 5�$

����������*���,�8���,;�> �>� �� ����,>,����6,������,;

����������.�����6+�,5�� 4)

����������1���������������# ���,/��6 ;;��6,�8�4���58

����������0����,5���4��5�>,58� ��2�4�I����,

��������������6 55�6G

���������������������)����3�++$�4�,�8 �: ��;�,���:�H�58

���������������,5��HG

��������������������?)���� � �+�� 5������ ��5��,�

���������������2�4�)

=�����������������������������������������������������������������������*�

,>��'*

Page 99: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � ������������������������������������

���������������������)�������%%���;>���,/�$���;>���

���������������,/�$���,;�� ���5��5>��� 4)

��������������������?)������8�� ����58��,5���: ��,5�

���������������,:�>�,5��6+���� -�: �5�$����,�4�:�: �

����������'���,5��,���5�>�,��5/+�>�G

����������*����������)����3�++$��8����8��4� �: ��;�,���:�,

����������.���H�58��,5:H)��# ��9� 4$�H�58��,5:H���,

����������1���/,>����5;)

����������0���������������3�:�8 �K�: ���,;��� ;���,56�+,5

���������������58��,5���,�8���4++�,��4�5����F��� �$

��������������-����,/���,/��K�,��4�5�8��,+5�,8:)

��������������������?)��������9�: ���,8��,�: ��4�5�

��������������,���5�>�,��5/+�>��4��5�>,58� �3,5��5

��������������"5 �)$�����9�: ���,8�%%

����������'����������)����3�++$�3,5��5�"5 �)���,�6+��

����������*�����5�)

����������.���������?)�����>�)����8�( �:)

����������1����������)����( �:���,�6+�����5�)

����������0���������?)�����>�)��( �: ��5�-���� �,��4�5

��������������4����5� 5�� �: ���,8�6 ;;��6,�8� �� ��

���������������,5���4��5�>,58� ��2�4�I����,

��������������6 55�6G

���������������������)����� 55�6$� 5�,�:��>��+�����;>�

���������������,/��6 ;;��6,�8� ���;)

=�����������������������������������������������������������������������*'

�����������������������������������

��������������������?)����3�++$���,;�� �,�9�>�: ��,� �

��������������,�:��>��+��$���6,���$�5�,++:$�-5,�9+:$��5$

,>��'.

Page 100: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � ����������������,K��� � �+:�� �5�+�/,����$�6+�,5+:$

���������������,�4 �+8�����5/+�>�8$������,;�,�9�>�: �

����������'���4��5�>,58� ��;�+:��2�4��%%

����������*����������)����3�++$�: ��9� 4$��,K�� �5

����������.���� � �$� �5�� � �����,�,�:

����������1���6 �/�5�, ��4��� ���������

����������0����5/+�>�8)

��������������������?)�����9,:$�,�8�-���5��4,��,

��������������8�6��� ��%%�,5��: ���,:�>���5��4,���

��������������8�6��� �� 5�,5��: ���,:�>���5��4,��,

��������������8�6��� ���,�4,���5/+�>�8G

���������������������)������,;�� ��,:�>���5��4,��,

����������'���8�6��� �$���,;�� ��,:�>���5��4,��� �,

����������*���8�6��� �$���,;��,:�>�K���5/+�>�8)

����������.���������?)����( �: ��6,�K��;�+:�,��4�5�� $

����������1�����5��4,��� �8�6��� ��%%

����������0����������)������,;�� ��,:�>���5��4,�$���,;

��������������� ��,:�>���5��4,��� $���,;��,:�>�K�

���������������5/+�>�8)

��������������������������!�)�(��@<����,;�> �>� �6�5-:

���������������������,�F��� �$�4��4++�,9������4�

����������������������8>���,�,5>,�,�8�����4�,���

=�����������������������������������������������������������������������**

�����������������������������������

��������������������8��5;�, ����,� ���,)

��������������������������C�����7�(��7��)D

��������������������?)����� 4$�4��5�>,58� �,�:� ��5

��������������������6 �6�5��>��2�4�)6 ;� 5�,�:��2�4�

����������'�������$��,/��: ���,8�,�:�6 ;;��6, ��

,>��'1

Page 101: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � �����������*�����6�����-+�>� -����+,4���4��,�: ��

����������.���6 �6�5��>��2�4�G

����������1����������)����3�++$���8 �K�9� 4�4������

����������0���+,4���4,��-+�8)

��������������������?)����(�6���00�$��,/��: ���,8�,�:

��������������6 ;;��6, ���4��,�: ���6 �6�5��>��2�4�

����������������6�� + >��� 5�,�:� -�����2�4������G

���������������������)����� ��,���5�6,++�,����;�)

��������������������?)�����,/��: ���� 9��� ��,:�� , �4�

����������'���5�>,58� �G

����������*���������������!�)� ��(�(��<����9�8�,�8

����������.���������,��4�5�8)

����������1����������)����# ��,�9�8�;��,� ���,:�� ,

����������0���,+5�,8:)

��������������������?)����(�6���00�)

���������������������)����� ��,���9� 4� -�,����;�)

��������������������?)����(5$��,/��: ���/�5�������/ +/�8

�������������������>����6 5� 5, ���- 5�6+���G

���������������������)����� )

=�����������������������������������������������������������������������*.

�����������������������������������

��������������������?)�����,/��: ���/�5�;,8��,�:

��������������5��5����, ��� �,�:�6 ;�,�:� 5�,�:���:

��������������4��5�>,58� ����,8/�,�+:� -����>���

��������������6 5� 5, ���- 5���;G

����������'����������)����� ��,���9� 4� -)

����������*���������?)����3� �4 �+8�: ��5�-�5��,� �,

����������.��� 5 �9,��5�� ���-���5��4,��%%

����������1����������)������,;�� ���5�$��4 �+8�8����8� �

,>��*0

Page 102: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � �����������0�������,56�+,5���, �)

��������������������?)����� �: ���,/��,�:�8�,�4�,

��������������!5)�3���+�5K�����6,+B, ���G

���������������������)����� )

��������������������?)�����,/��: ���/�5��� 9���4���;�4�

��������������5�>,58� ����+�>,+���5/6������4,���5 /8�>

����������'��� ��2�4�G

����������*����������)����# ��,�9�8�;���,�%%

����������.���������������!�)� ��(�(��<����9�8�,�8

����������1���������,��4�5�8)

����������0����������)����%%�,+5�,8:�,�8���,��4�5�8�)

��������������������?)������8�4�,�4,��: �5�,��4�5�,>,�$

���������������5$�H� HG

���������������������)������8 �K�5�;�;��5�����E,6

��������������F��� ��: ��,�9�8$�� ���8 �K�5�;�;��5���

���������������E,6�4 58�>� -�;:�,��4�5$�4�,����F��� �

=�����������������������������������������������������������������������*1

�����������������������������������

��������������4,��%%�������F��� ��4,��,�9�8�,�8

��������������,��4�5�8)

��������������������?)����� �: ���,/���,�-,E�:�G

���������������������)����� )��3��4++�6,++�;:���65�,5:

����������'���,>,�)

����������*�����������������4++����: �� ��� +8)

����������.���������?)�����9,:)

����������1���������������C ,�������5 6��8�>�)D

����������0����������)�����9,:$����-,E���6 ;�>$�� �4��,5�

��������������J���> �>� ����: �� ��� +8�- 5�,�;���)

��������������������?)������,�9�: �G

,>��*�

Page 103: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � ���������������������������C ,�������5 6��8�>�<���<����);)%

����������������������<����);)D

���������������������)�����++�5>�)��3���,/��: �5�+��5)

����������'���������?)����� �: ���/�5�5�6,++�����>���

����������*���+��5G

����������.���������������!�)�(��@<����K��>���;,59�8$

����������1���������-5�� -�,++$��:����6 �5�5�� 5�5�,�

����������0�����������-��8,��K��)

���������������������)��������+��5���8,�8� 8,:$�,�8��

����������������/�5��,4����- 5�)

��������������������?)�����,/��: ���/�5���������6 ����� -

�����������������+��5G

���������������������)����� )�����,/��K�5�,8����+��5

=�����������������������������������������������������������������������.0

�����������������������������������

��������������:�)

��������������������?)�����9,:)

���������������������)������� ���,����+��5���4 %�+��

���������������,>���+ �>$����,/��K�5�,8�)������+��5��

����������'���8,�8� 8,:$�� /�;��5��0$��00�$�,�8�K�

����������*������>��8$�� ������,�+��5�: ��>�:�$

����������.����2�4�$�65�,�8� 8,:)

����������1���������?)����3�++$�����9��,K��,��5���;� �

����������0����,�: ��,5�����>�� ����5�6 58$��5)

���������������������)����3�++$����+��5����,/����-5 �

�������������� -�;����8,�8� 8,:)

��������������������?)�������;��> �,��,8)

���������������������������5�� -�,++$�+�K��>���;,59�8

��������������,����;��5��$���-��8,��K��)

,>��*�

Page 104: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � �����������'���������������!�)� ��(�(��<����J�6 �� ���

����������*����������5�86,�$�����,����/�5���������- 5�)

����������.���������������!�)�(��@<�����;��,�9��;�,

����������1���������F��� ��,� ���-5�)�����,/��K��/��

����������0����������E,;��8��;� ��)�����;��%%���5�$

�������������������������;:�8�� � �� -��;$�,�8��

��������������������,��5�6,�����-,6��,����4,��� �>�

����������������������� /�5$�����,���K�,���E6����- 5

���������������������;� �J�;�����>��)

��������������������������!�)� ��(�(��<�����,/��,�5>��

=�����������������������������������������������������������������������.�

�����������������������������������

��������������������;,9�� �J�6 ���,��������-$�,�8���,;

��������������������� �,9�>���5�6 ��� �� -��5,66�

��������������������+,4�-5 ;�: �)

��������������������������!�)�(��@<����,K��-��)����,;�J��

����������'����������,:�>$�+��;��>���;,59�8�-5�)

����������*���������������C��� � ���E�����-��8,��K��$

����������.���������+��5�8,�8$�� /�;��5��0$��00�$�4�

����������1���������-,E�5,��;,+�6 /�5�����$�4,��;,59�8

����������0���������- 5�8��-6, �$�,�� -����8,�)D

��������������������?)����!5)���������$�8 �: ���,/���

��������������-5 �� -�: ��4�,K�������;,59�8�,����-��8,��K

����������������;��5��G������,�6 55�6G

���������������������)����#��)

��������������������?)�����9,:$�6 �+8�: ���+�,���5�,8��- 5

����������'���;�G

����������*���������������!�)� ��(�(��<�����+ �8G

����������.���������?)����� $� �: �5��+-)

,>��*�

Page 105: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � �����������1����������)����3�++$���4++��6,��$������4,�

����������0��� �� ��K��,�4 %�,>��+��5$����,/��� ��,8

��������������,�� �� 5��:� ���8:�)��( �-�: ��,�9�;�

��������������F��� ���,� �����+��5$���,;�> �>� ��++

��������������: �����,/��� ��,8�,�� �� 5��:� ���8:�)

��������������������?)�����9,:$�������4++�> ��5 �>����

��������������+��5��,5,>5,����:��,5,>5,���4��: �� ����

=�����������������������������������������������������������������������.�

�����������������������������������

��������������-�: ��5�6,++�,�:� -�)

��������������������������� �: ���/�5�5�6,++�5�6�/�>�,

��������������6 55��� �8��6��-5 ;�(�������,; �G

���������������������)�����9�����,:$����,/��K��,8�,�6�,�6�

����������'��� ���8:�: �5�+��5)

����������*���������?)������,;�� �,+9�>�,� ����

����������.����,56�+,5�%%

����������1����������)������8 �K�5�6,++�,�:�6 55��� �8��6�

����������0���-5 ;�(�������,; ��,����� ����;�)

��������������������?)����� �: ���/�5�5�6,++�,�5�F�����:

��������������3,:���(;�� -�3,5��5�"5 �)�,�� ��2�4�K�

�����������������8�>��,���G

���������������������)����� )����;>������,�� ;�� 8:�,

���������������2�4��,�9�8�;�� �,+9� �3,5��5�"5 �)�,�8��

����������'���8�6+��8)����,�;>��������-,6)

����������*���������?)�����5��: ��,4,5�� -�,�:

����������.���6 �-8��,+:�,>5��;����E�6��8��:�3,5��5

����������1���"5 �)�4��5�>,58� ��2�4�G

����������0����������)����� )

��������������������?)�����,/��: ���/�5������,�:���6�

,>��*�

Page 106: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � ���������������,>5��;��G

���������������������)����� ��,���6 �+8�5�6,++)

��������������������?)�����>,�$��5$����+��5�5�-�5��

��������������: �����>� �����,8/� 5:�� ,58� -��2�4�

=�����������������������������������������������������������������������.�

�����������������������������������

����������������4����-,++� -��111L��5�>� -��000)

���������������������)������4,����/�5� ��,�:�,8/� 5:�� ,58

�������������� -��2�4�)

��������������������?)�����8�(�������,; ���/�5�;���4�

����������'���: ������5� �G

����������*����������)��������9���%%�,������-�8$���;,:

����������.����,/���,8�,�6 �/�5�, ��4���;$���8 �K�9� 4

����������1���-��4,������5� �� 5�� )

����������0���������?)����# ���5�/ ��+:���-�8��,�: �

���������������,8���/�5�5�/�4�8�,�:� -��2�4�K�

���������������6�� + >��I����,�6 55�6G

���������������������)��������/�5���-�8� ��,)��3�,��

�������������� +8�: ���$���8 �K��,/��,�:�9� 4+�8>�� -�

��������������5>��� 4)

����������'���������?)�����9,:)

����������*����������)������8 �K�9� 4�4����5���5�/�4�8�

����������.��� 5�� )

����������1���������?)����( �K��� ���+�$����$��5$��,

����������0���: ��88�5�/�4�)

���������������������)�����9�����,8$���,��4�5�8���

��������������F��� �)��# ��,�9�8�;�$���,��4�5�8�)���

��������������8 �K�9� 4�4����5���5�/�4�8�� 5�� )���

���������������,/��� �9� 4+�8>�� -��5>��� 4)����4,���

,>��*�

Page 107: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � �����������������5��,���, 5��:$���4,��� ��/ +/�8�4�

=�����������������������������������������������������������������������.�

�����������������������������������

����������������5��,���)

��������������������?)�����9,:$�-�: ��8 �K��,/��,

��������������5�6 ++�6 �� -�5�/�4�>�$��������K�

��������������� ���+���,�: ���,8I����,�6 55�6G

����������'���������������!�)� ��(�(��<����:��>K�

����������*���������� ���+�)������9�4��6 �+8����+,��

����������.����������,)

����������1����������)�����>�$���8 �K���9�K��� ���+�

����������0������%%�,�8���8 �K���9���,�����8)

��������������������?)����� �: ���,/��,�:�6+�,5�5

��������������5�6 ++�6 �� -����6,���� -����+��5G

���������������������)����� $���8 �K��,/��,�8�,+�8

��������������5�6 ++�6 �� 5�,�:�5�6 ++�6 �� -��,���

��������������� ����;�)

����������'���������?)������8$�,>,�$�����9�: ���,8

����������*�����-�8��,�: ��8 �K�9� 4�,�: ���%%�75�>

����������.�����,>,58$�: ��8 �K�9� 4�75�>���,>,58G

����������1����������)������8 �9� 4�75�>���,>,58)

����������0���������?)����3� ���75�>���,>,58G

���������������������)����������8� �4 59�,�3,5��5�"5 �)

��������������������?)����� ���!5)���,>,58$� �������� -

��������������: �5�9� 4+�8>�$��,/��,�:��- 5;, �

��������������6 �6�5��>��2�4�G

���������������������)������8 �K�9� 4�,����� ���

=�����������������������������������������������������������������������.�

,>��*'

Page 108: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � �

�����������������������������������

��������������;�)

��������������������?)����3�,$� �������� -�: �5

��������������5�6 ++�6 �$�4,��75�>���,>,58K��5 +��4�

��������������5�>,58� ��2�4�G

����������'����������)������8 �K�9� 4�4�,����;>�� 5

����������*���;>��� ��,/��8 ���4��5����6� ��2�4�)

����������.���������?)����3� ���75�>���,>,58G

����������1����������)���������,���5� ��4� �4 59�8�,

����������0���3,5��5�"5 �)

��������������������?)����3�++$�4�,�4,������ � ��%%

���������������������)�������4,�����6��6,+�%%�����

���������������6�� + >:��8�� -����6 ;�,�:)

��������������������?)����� �: ���,/��,�:�8�,�4��5�

��������������!5)���,>,58���6�55��+:G

����������'����������)����� )������+�/�����+�-���

����������*���6 ;�,�:)

����������.���������?)����� 4�,� ����5��� 9� �$�88�: �

����������1����/�5��,/��,�:�6 �/�5�, ���4����5��� 9� �

����������0���6 �6�5��>��2�4����6�� + >��G

���������������������)�����9�����,:$���5��� 9� ��4 59�

��������������- 5�3,5��5�"5 �)$�,�8�,�:�6 �/�5�, ������,8

��������������4��3,5��5�"5 �)�,5���5/+�>�8)��( $���,;

��������������� ��,:�>����,8�,�6 �/�5�, �$���,;��

���������������,:�>���88�� ��,/��,�6 �/�5�, �$���,;

=�����������������������������������������������������������������������.'

�����������������������������������

���������������,:�>�: ��,5��,�9�>�- 5��5/+�>�8�;,�5,+) ,>��**

Page 109: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � �

��������������������?)������8��,/8�� +�5G

���������������������)������,;�� ���5�����/�5��,8�,�:

��������������8�,+�>��4���;)

����������'���������?)������8�4� ����,/8�� +�5G

����������*����������)����# ��,�9�8�,�8���,��4�5�8��,

����������.���F��� ��,+5�,8:)

����������1���������?)����( �: ���,/����/�5��������

����������0���6 55��� �8��6�$�: ��8 �K�5�6,++�����>���

��������������6 55��� �8��6��-5 ;�!5)��,; �I����,

��������������6 55�6G

��������������������������!�)� ��(�(��<���K��8,�8� 8,:)

���������������������)�����K��8,�8� 8,:)

��������������������������!�)� ��(�(��<���K��;,59�8

����������'���������H�5,-H)���K��;� ���+��- 5����

����������*����������,/����������- 5�)����8����5��5�

����������.���������,885������,���;�:�� ������� ����>�+��

����������1���������� ��:)

����������0���������?)�����,/��: ���/�5���������6 ����� -

�����������������+��5���- 5�G

���������������������)�������,/����/�5�%%

��������������������������!�)� ��(�(��<�����,��4�5�8�����

��������������������F��� ��$�� G

���������������������)�������,/����/�5���������+��5

=�����������������������������������������������������������������������.*

�����������������������������������

����������������- 5�)

��������������������?)����� 4�,� ������%;,+���,�4�5�

��������������-,E�8� /�5� �: �$�,��4�++G�����5����,�

���������������%;,+��,K��8,�8���>���'$��00�)���,/��: � ,>��*.

Page 110: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � �

����������'����/�5�������,��%;,+���- 5�G

����������*����������)����������,���%;,+�-5 ;��,/8

����������.���� +�5� ���8��5,��+G

����������1���������?)����� 55�6)

����������0���������������!�)� ��(�(��<������ ���8,�8

����������������������>����$��00�G

��������������������������!�)�(��@<��� 55�6)

���������������������)�����>�$�����������%;,+)

��������������������?)�����9,:)

��������������������������!�)�(��@<����K��>���;,59�8�,�

����������'����������)

����������*���������������C��� � ���E�����-��8,��K��$

����������.���������-,E�5,��;,+�6 /�5������,�8��%;,+�$

����������1���������4,��;,59�8�- 5�8��-6, �$�,�� -

����������0������������8,�)D

��������������������?)����(5$�8 �: ���,/��,�:�5�,� ��

��������������9� 4�4�:�: �5��,;����;�� ��8����,

���������������%;,+G

���������������������)����� $���6,������8 �K�5�6,++�>/�>

��������������,�:� �� ���,� ������,���)

=�����������������������������������������������������������������������..

�����������������������������������

��������������������?)������8�: ����/�5$� �������� -�: �5

��������������5�6 ++�6 �$��,8�,�:�8�6��� ���4�

��������������!5)���,>,58�4��5�>,58� ��,;�$����5G

���������������������)�����9�����,:$�,�:�8�6��� ����;>�

����������'����,/�� 5�;>��� ��,/���,8�4��!5)���,>,58

����������*���4 �+8�����5/+�>�8)

����������.���������?)������,;�> �>� ����: �� ��� +8�- 5 ,>��*1

Page 111: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � �

����������1���J���,�;���)

����������0���������������C ,���)D

��������������������������!�)�(��@<���9,:$�4��,5���,69� �)

���������������������������9,:$����,/��> �� ��>�-�5��5

��������������������,����;�)��� 4�/�5$�4��,5��> �>�

���������������������,/�� �> � ���8>���,�,5>,�4��5�>,58

�������������������� �: �5�5�-��,+� �,��4�5� ��� ;�� -

����������'��������������������4��: �5�6+,;� -

����������*����������5/+�>�$�� �4��;,:��,/�� �6 ;���,69

����������.���������,�8�6 �6+�8��4��� ���F��� ���,�,

����������1���������+,�5�8,�)

����������0���������������!�)� ��(�(��<�����)

������������������������������3����((<��3��4++�,9��

����������������������8�5�,8/��;��)

��������������������������3��,5��� �6 ;;�>� �6 ;���,69

�������������������� 5�� )

��������������������������!�)�(��@<����,K��-��)

=�����������������������������������������������������������������������.1

��������������

��������������������������C�;��� �8<����<�.��);)D

��������������

��������������

��������������������������������������MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

����������'�������������������������������������"��(����

����������*���

����������.���(���65��8�,�8�,--5;�8

����������1�����- 5��;�����MMMM�8,:

����������0��� -�MMMMMMMMMMMMM$��00�)

��������������MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM ,>��.0

Page 112: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � �

��������������

��������������

��������������

��������������

����������'���

����������*���

����������.���

����������1���

����������0���

��������������

��������������

��������������

��������������

��������������

=�����������������������������������������������������������������������10

��������������

������������������������������������������������

����������������������������(����������3�#�������D������������������������������������<���)�������������������#������3�#������D��������������

����������'����������������$�3���#��)�"�(����$�,���>��5�8

����������*��������� 5 -��� �,+���� 5�5�,�8�� ,5:� ��+6

����������.���������4���,�8�- 5����(,�� -���4�# 59$

����������1���������8 ���5��:�6�5-:<

����������0�����������������,�����������"��(����$���

��������������������4�����4� ���8�� � ������5����- 5�

�����������������������- 5�$�,--5;�8���- 5��;�$�,�8

���������������������,���6��8�� � ����,�5���,�8

��������������������,66�5,��5�6 58� -������; �:�>/�� ,>��.�

Page 113: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � �

���������������������:����4����)

����������'�����������������-�5��5�6�5-:��,���,;��

����������*���������5�+,�8� �,�:� -�����,5��� ���

����������.���������,6 ���:��+ 8� 5�;,55,>�$�,�8��,

����������1�����������,;���� �4,:���5���8�����

����������0��������� �6 ;�� -����;,�5)

�����������������������������3����((�3������$����,/�

����������������������5��� ����;:��,�8�����'��8,:

�������������������� -�� /�;��5$��00�)

��������������������������������������������������������������������������������MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM����������������������������������������������3���#��)�"�(����$�� �

=�����������������������������������������������������������������������1�

��������������

��������������� /�;��5��0$��00�

������������������������������������������&

��������������3����((������������&�!��������"#���������� �7�

��������������������������������!5)�(�+B�����������������

����������'���

����������*���%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%���&��"��(%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%%

����������.�����-��8,��K��$�+��5�8,�8$�� /�;��5��0$

����������1����00�$�4��-,E�5,��;,+�6 /�5�����)))))�.�

����������0�����-��8,��K��$�-,E�5,��;,+�6 /�5

�������������������,�8��%;,+�))))))))))))))))))))))))))�.*

��������������

��������������

��������������C�������������������(3��)D)))))))))))))))))���

��������������C�������������������(3��)D)))))))))))))))))��.

����������'���C�������������������(3��)D)))))))))))))))))��0

����������*���C�������������������(3��)D)))))))))))))))))��� ,>��.�

Page 114: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � �

����������.���C�������������������(3��)D)))))))))))))))))��*

����������1���C�������������������(3��)D)))))))))))))))))��*

����������0���

��������������C!���������(�����)D�)))))))))))))))))))))))��0

��������������

��������������C�����7�(��7��)D)))))))))))))))))))))))))))�**

��������������

��������������

=�����������������������������������������������������������������������1�

��������������

��������������(����������3�#����D����� >MM -MM >�

����������������������������������������<

�������������������#������3�#���������D

����������������������4��� �;,9�����- ++ 4�>�6�,�>��$

����������'���- 5����- ++ 4�>�5�,� ��<

����������*��� �7������

����������.���MMMM�MMMM�������7�<�MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

����������1������������������(��<�MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

����������0���MMMM�MMMM�������7�<�MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

�����������������������������(��<�MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

��������������MMMM�MMMM�������7�<�MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

�����������������������������(��<�MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

��������������MMMM�MMMM�������7�<�MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

�����������������������������(��<�MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

����������'���MMMM�MMMM�������7�<�MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

����������*������������������(��<�MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

����������.���MMMM�MMMM�������7�<�MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

����������1������������������(��<�MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

����������0���MMMM�MMMM�������7�<�MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM ,>��.�

Page 115: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

���������������� � �

�����������������������������(��<�MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

��������������MMMM�MMMM�������7�<�MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

�����������������������������(��<�MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

��������������MMMM�MMMM�������7�<�MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

�����������������������������(��<�MMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMMM

=

,>��.�

Page 116: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

EXHIBIT B

Page 117: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

[INSERT JOAO COMPLAINT]

[INSERT JOAO RESPONSE]

[INSERT JOAO REBUTTAL]

Eliot
Eliot
See CD Folder - Exhibits for Rubenstein - Exhibit B
Page 118: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

EXHIBIT C

Page 119: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

[INSERT WHEELER COMPLAINT]

[INSERT WHEELER RESPONSE]

[INSERT WHEELER REBUTTAL]

[INSERT WHEELER SECOND RESPONSE]

[INSERT COMPANY’S SECOND REBUTTAL]

Eliot
See CD Folder - Exhibits for Rubenstein - Exhibit C
Page 120: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

EXHIBIT D

Page 121: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

LIST OF PROSKAUER CLIENTS CONDUCTING UNAUTHORIZED USE

Page 122: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

HAND NOTES OF MR. WHEELER POINTING TO NDA BREACHES

Page 123: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

Page 124: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

EXHIBIT E

Page 125: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

MR. BERNSTEIN TRANSMITS INVENTIONS TO RESPONDENT46

46 The first in a series of electronic mail messages that the Company cannot attest to the validity of, butrequests First Judicial Department Disciplinary Committee to obtain the matching messages fromRespondent’s files as much “hacking” has gone on with respect to the Company’s information systems.

Page 126: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

RESPONDENTS VISITS PROPRIETARY AND CONFIDENTIAL PAGE OF

COMPANY’S WEBSITE47

47Supra Note 45.

Page 127: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

RESPONDENT ADVISES MR. BERNSTEIN ON PATENT OVERSIGHT

Page 128: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

MR. WHEELER TRANSMITS PATENT BINDERS TO RESPONDENT

Page 129: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

LETTER OF MR. WHEELER POINTING TO RESPONDENT’S REVIEW OF

COMPANY’S INVENTIONS

Page 130: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

Page 131: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

EXHIBIT F

Page 132: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

RESPONDENT’S BIOGRAPHY ON PROSKAUER’S WEBSITE

Page 133: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

LETTER OF MR. WHEELER APPEALING TO PARTNERS

Page 134: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

PROSKAUER’S CLIENT LIST WHEREIN MR. WHEELER PLACES A CHECK

MARK NEXT TO RESPONDENT’S CLIENTS

Page 135: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

Page 136: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

Page 137: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

Page 138: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

Page 139: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

OCTOBER 1999 NEW BUSINESS COMMITTEE CHECKLIST48

48 The Company has no knowledge that this document was ever formally submitted within Proskauer; theCompany requests First Judicial Department Disciplinary Committee to obtain a true copy of thisdocument/

Page 140: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

Page 141: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

Page 142: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

Page 143: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

Page 144: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

Page 145: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

Page 146: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

Page 147: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

EXHIBIT G

Page 148: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

EMAIL OF MR. UTLEY NAMING RESPONDENT AS ADVISOR

Page 149: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

Page 150: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

WACHOVIA SECURITIES PRIVATE PLACEMENT MEMORANDUM

NAMING RESPONDENT AS COMPANY COUNSEL

Page 151: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

WACHOVIA SECURITIES PRIVATE PLACEMENT MEMORANDUM

NAMING RESPONDENT AS ADVISORY BOARD MEMBER

Page 152: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

LETTER OF ALAN J. EPSTEIN, PARTNER OF ARMSTRONG HIRSCH

JACKOWAY TYERMAN & WERTHEIMER, LOS ANGELES, CAL.

Page 153: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

Page 154: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

EXHIBIT H

Page 155: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

COMPANY’S VIDEO TECHNOLOGY SPECIFICATION

Page 156: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

RESPONDENT AND MR. WHEELER’S SUBMISSION OF VIDEO

DISCLOSURE TO MR. JOAO

Page 157: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

Page 158: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

PROVISIONAL PATENT FILING 60/137,207 BY MR. JOAO UNDER

SUPERVISION OF RESPONDENT AND IN CONJUNCTION WITH MR.

WHEELER

Page 159: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

Page 160: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

HAND NOTES OF MR. UTLEY POINTING TO MISSING ELEMENTS OF MR.

JOAO’S PROVISIONAL FILING UNDER SUPERVISION OF RESPONDENT49

49Supra Note 45.

Page 161: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

TELECONFERENCE TRANSCRIPT OF

JULY 31, 2000

PARTICIPANTS:

• DOUGLAS BOEHM OF FOLEY AND LARDNER;

• MR. BERNSTEIN, SIMON L. BERNSTEIN, MR. UTLEY, AND MAURICE

BUCHSBAUM OF THE COMPANY;

• MR. WHEELER OF PROSKAUER

Eliot
See CD Folder for Audio Tape - Exhibits for Rubenstein - Exhibit H
Page 162: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

1

CORRECTED VERSION – CORRECTED ON 5/14/2003 Transcription of Telephone Conference

Conducted July 31, 2000 Participants:

Simon Bernstein, Eliot Bernstein, Maurice Buchsbaum, Brian Utley, Doug Boehm, Chris Wheeler

Note: Square brackets [ ] are used to indicate inaudible or indecipherable text. Text found inside brackets indicates transcriptionist’s best guess. Since speaker names are not specifically identified, transcriptionist has made an attempt to identify based upon comments made in conversation but cannot guarantee that each speaker has been accurately identified. Note also that this recording has numerous instances of participants speaking at once or carrying on simultaneous side conversations that make it difficult to follow and transcribe the entire line of discussion.

Utley: <begins midstream>...status of the original digital image

filings, and basically the fact that the original filings do not cover the full subject matter of the imaging technology; and to wit, one of the omissions, in particular in reading the claims section of the provisional and the formal filing, relates to the zooming and panning capability that is inherent in the technology. This has become a topic due to the fact that we are currently in the second phase of filing imaging patent protection which is driven by the provisionals that were filed later last year, between August and December of last year. So the concern that were expressed by Eliot in reviewing this is that this omission of the zooming and panning capability was attributable to a failure, for whatever reason, on the part of Ray Joao, the patent attorney of record, in constructing and putting together the provisional and formal filing<tape cuts out here> did I say it is that right Eliot

E Bernstein I believe so Utley Is that your understanding E Bernstein Correct Utley The purpose of this meeting is to review the facts and I think

there are two particular points that are ...that are important to moving ahead. The first is: “Given that the filings

are what they are, and given what we know about the filing which is scheduled to take place this week on Wednesday, what means do we have to correct the situation; and given whatever corrections we find, what then is the impact or exposure to iviewit based upon what actions we can take. Then, lastly, what, if any, recourse might iviewit have vi sa vi the omissions in the original filings Are there any other issues, Doug?

Bernstein: Yeah, just correcting back to Ray Joao's work of the formal filing that he filed. Do we have a copy of that?

Page 163: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

2

Utley: I do have that. Bernstein: I don’t. I’ve got the provisional and I’ve got... Boehm: Everything is on the table Utley: you should have...the formal. Bernstein: This one? Utley: Yes, that’s the formal. Bernstein: Okay. Simon Bernstein: I just have one question. Does anybody have, or are

we allowed to get, the files of Ray Joao? Boehm: I have them. Wheeler: Do you have all of the work that he had? Bernstein: No, not all of it. Utley: What was purported to be in the files? Bernstein: And he also claimed to us that he destroyed part of his files. Boehm: And I have some of his files. I have what was purported to

be all of the firms’ files. <Inaudible comment.> Utley: Well, there’s a whole history, then, because I tried to get

complete copies of the files originally, and found out later that not only did he not send us all the files, he didn’t even mention that there was an extra filing out there that we didn’t even know about.

Bernstein: This one that’s in question. Boehm: Yep Simon Bernstein: You have no notes, no data on...? Boehm: No, I have the application. I have things that you could

get from the US patent office—that I could get from the US patent office. I have very few notes. I do have some scribbled Ray Joao’s notes, but I think you gave me those notes.

Utley: I did. I gave you Bill Dick after Bill yourself[ ] the notes that I had.

Bernstein: And Ray’s made disclosures to us that he destroyed the documents

to protect us, which I don’t know what he was thinking.

Page 164: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

3

Simon Bernstein: Destroyed what documents? Bernstein: Whatever he had in his files. Other patent copies, copies of the

drafts as they proceeded...all that he destroyed to protect us from something I asked him to explain, and his reasoning...because I said to him, you know, usually you destroy documents when you are protecting somebody from something illegal or something. Have I done something that would force you to hurt me possibly? He said it was typical, normal, that all lawyers destroy their records.

Simon Bernstein: If that, in fact, is the case—I’ve never heard of a

lawyer you know other than Nixon destroying anything the work is ours. Am I right Chris when we pay for a lawyer and we pay for the work, the work is ours.

Wheeler: The work product is yours. He may maintain copies of his

files and everything; or his confidential notes to himself are not necessarily yours. But the work “product” is...

Simon Bernstein: Would you say that anything germane to the issue

belongs to him? Wheeler: Well, I mean if he wrote notes...in sidebars...yeah. Bernstein: How about revised patents[ ]. How about copies? Works in progress Wheeler: But things which would reinforce your patent, obviously,

that is germane to the strength of your patent yes, you would be entitled to copies I don’t think we disagree.

Bernstein: He’s claiming He destroyed all faxes. Wheeler: Can I ask you a question? Bernstein: Yes. Wheeler: Just so both of us understand...was this patent done prior

to his flying down here, or was this patent done as a result of his flying down here and having discussions with you? I was under the impression that when he flew down here—this was before Brian came—I was under the impression that followed our meeting with Reel 3-D. I was under the impression that he was coming down to discuss, at the very least, the video aspect so that you could complete that; but were you also completing the imaging patent?

Bernstein: Correct. Wheeler: So he went to your [kitchen]? Bernstein: Right. And we spent days there Wheeler: And the two of you spent all the days... Bernstein: Correct.

Page 165: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

4

Wheeler: And did he, in front of you, write notes? Bernstein: Tons. Hundreds Wheeler: And did he then produce them on his computer and type out

certain things? Bernstein: Yes. Wheeler: I was under the impression he was doing that with you. Bernstein: He did. Wheeler: And did you read those? Bernstein: I did. I did - now going to that same nature, that’s the

provisional I think we’re talking about... Wheeler: Right. Bernstein: But he flew out here again with me and Brian and went through

this as he went to file this—this is a 3/23/2000 file—that also fails to make mention of.

Wheeler: So that’s the formal file...the formal one? Bernstein: The formal file. So both also missed the point. Wheeler: I just wanted to know and to put things in proportion, when

you read the provisionals, because Brian wasn’t with the company right now and then, and when there were all those drafts, because obviously we didn’t see them...

Bernstein: Well, you saw because we gave you all the documents. I’d get a

document from Ray and bring it to you so you would have records of everything up to that point because I didn’t want to keep them at my house.

Wheeler: The final...the final...but I’m not reviewing the patent. I

was keep maintaining it as... Bernstein: Okay, but you have every record... Wheeler: Everything you gave me we maintain. We don’t... Simon Bernstein: Any notes should be produced... Wheeler: We don’t throw away anything. Bernstein: Yeah, I know. Simon Bernstein: I know you don’t you’re very thorough. Wheeler: So, I’d file it away; so if you gave it to me, it’s in our

archives.

Page 166: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

5

Bernstein: Right. Wheeler: I wanted to know, when you read those drafts... Bernstein: Oh, it was...it was clear Wheeler: Answer my question...when you read the drafts, did you see

the panning and scanning elements? Bernstein: Yeah, and zooming, up to 1,000 times we thought it was. That was

the big...you know, we had it in there...as a matter of fact, he just said it...somewhere it’s in there up to 1,000 times, isn’t it?

Utley: 1,700. Bernstein: Right. That was our old mistaken a number of times. So, yeah, for

him to miss that, Chris, would be the essence of stupidity. Wheeler: So it was in there? Bernstein: Absolutely. Utley: The zooming, it was in the body, but not in the claim. Boehm: But a provisional doesn’t really...doesn’t have to have

claims. Utley: It doesn’t have claims. Bernstein: But then in our claims of our patent, it’s not there. This is

what you’re representing, correct? Wheeler: So you’re saying that it wasn’t put in the file, but it was

put in the provisional. Boehm: No, I could see where he’s going to argue that it’s there. Bernstein: Let’s see. Let’s take a look. Wheeler: ...what the language of the patent claims are that he

filed. Bernstein: Okay, let’s see what he... Wheeler: And this isn’t the final decision because I can go back

right now and amend those claims. Bernstein: Wow, yes, but we have elements of exposure that creep in correct? Wheeler: I’m just telling you the whole thing, then we’ll go back.

So you did look it over, and there are no claims in the provisional?

Boehm: There are no claims in a provisional. You can file them,

but they are never examined.

Page 167: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

6

Wheeler: But the zooming and the panning and the scanning element

was incorporated in that? Boehm: Go ahead, Brian. Utley: Let me make sure that we say that properly. The provisional

filing had a claims section which migrated into the final filing, but Eliot is correct in saying that the provisional does not need a claims section.

Boehm: The provisional never gets examined, so it doesn’t need the

claims. It just holds your place in line for one year. Bernstein: But then when I look through this... Simon Bernstein: Hold on, Eliot, I need to understand this. What

you’re saying, then, is assuming any negligence on his part, to that point the negligence doesn’t become realistically damaging to the company until since he actually made a claim...since he actually made a provisional filing. Which took our place in line.

Boehm: If the provisional filing covered the invention, your place

in line is only as good as the subject matter described in accordance with the law.

Simon: Obviously, it should have had the panning and zooming in

there. Boehm: Well, the word “zoom” is in there. Bernstein: But not really to describe what we’re doing. Boehm: But do you see what I’m saying? It’s only to the amount of

subject matter that and attested where the average person skilled in the art could make and use an invention as it’s described in this document, and without “undue” experimentation, without inventing it himself.

Simon Bernstein: Right. Boehm: Now, this provisional application, you throw it...different

patent attorneys do different things with it. On one end of the spectrum, you do an invention disclosure. Most big corporations have invention disclosure forms which leads the inventor to write out good disclosures and figures and things, and I’ve seen people actually file that invention disclosure because if you’re coming up on a bar date, you don’t have time to write an application or think about what your invention is. All you’ve got to do is get something on file, and then hope that it will protect...that whatever you had on file covered your invention.

Simon Bernstein: Is that what we’ve done so far? Bernstein: No.

Page 168: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

7

Boehm: I don’t want to answer that, but that’s the line. Boehm: It’s a grey question, it’s a grey area, I think. Wheeler: That’s what we’re aiming to do, that’s what we’re hoping to

do. Boehm: But on one end of the spectrum, you file very minimal work,

and that’s what Ray did on some of the applications, like on the one...

Wheeler: He was trying to do it in a broad... Wheeler: He did say conceptually that his method was to do a broad

stroke of it. Boehm: Right. Well, a broad stroke on drafting the claims. Wheeler: Okay. Right. Eliot Bernstein: He’s got to put the invention in! Boehm: That doesn’t happen in a provisional at all, generally. If

you want to, you can write the provisional claims just so you know what you’re doing, and it’s actually used as subject matter; but the claims are never examined. It doesn’t matter if it’s in proper format or anything, it just sits there. Now, if you pick up the provisional a year later—it has to be within that year—if it’s a real well done application, you just file it. There’s no money involved in turning the provisional into a regular filing. Oftentimes, with these one-page disclosures, there’s a substantial amount of money involved in taking that from there to there. The problem is you cannot add subject matter to the patent application later on once it’s filed.

Bernstein: Unless it’s really the patent application, correct? Boehm: No, the subject matter has to be supported—has to be

described— Simon Bernstein: In the provisional. Boehm: Uhhuh To that text, or you lose your filing date. Wheeler: But the zooming element, then, is not in addition. Boehm: Is not in addition? You mean… E. Bernstein: It’s not even in there. Wheeler: You can’t add subject matter. So if he did describe

zooming, then it’s not in addition. Bernstein: Did he, ?

Page 169: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

8

Wheeler: I am asking you whether he did or not? Boehm: I’m not clear on what you mean. You can’t add additional

subject matter after the filing date of an application or you’ll lose the right to that filing date.

Wheeler: The provisional? You can’t add subject matter to the

provisional? Boehm: To any application...any patent. Wheeler: But if he did describe the zooming, then the zooming

element is not an addition in the formal. Boehm: Right. It’s supported. If he described it in the original,

you can base claims on it later. Wheeler: And have we said that the zooming is in the provisional? Bernstein: Nowhere that I can see. Simon Bernstein: Wait. You’re the lawyer reading another lawyer’s work. Is

it in there? Boehm: Do you have a copy of it? Bernstein: Yeah, right here. It isn’t in there if it bites you. E. Bernstein: It’s not in the filing either. Simon Bernstein: It’s obviously not in the filing if it’s not in the

provisional. Bernstein: No. Simon Bernstein: Can you make reference to something...let’s say he

uses the word “zoom”. Boehm: Exactly. I’m pretty sure the word “zoom” is in there, isn’t

it Eliot? Bernstein: But what Doug’s saying is that had you written the patent, you

would have described the invention as the ability to do this cool zoom that we all...and just said this is the cool part of what we’re doing. What Ray’s missing in the outline is the ability for you to put a picture on a Web page.

Wheeler: He did know that an important element was the fact that

when we went in and made it bigger, we didn’t pixelate. Bernstein: It didn’t pixelate. Not in here at all. E. Bernstein: Not even mention to that concept. Bernstein: Complete failure. It’s not.

Page 170: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

9

Wheeler: But if said it doesn’t distort when we zoom... Bernstein: Nope. Nothing like that. Wheeler: That’s the same thing, isn’t it? Bernstein: Yeah, but he hasn’t said anything...he doesn’t even tell you ... Wheeler: What about the panning element, or is that element not

patentable? Bernstein: No, that’s part of the whole process is to be able to zoom while

panning. Wheeler: Here it is. “The above process can be utilized in order to

create higher zoom capabilities with each new depth layer of an image...”

Bernstein: No, but that’s a new depth layer which is bringing in another

hotspot image, so it’s really a completely different subject.

Boehm: Oh. Okay. Boehm: Okay. Where is that? E. Bernstein: I read it to, he’s very crafty you know. Boehm: “Where the zoom capacity of up to 1700 times or greater may

be easily obtained with the [present conventions.]” Are they talking about the hotspot now?

Bernstein: No. Boehm: No, it’s the general zooming capability. Wheeler: So it’s not in addition. Bernstein: Well, explain to him where it’s missing. Wheeler: You guys didn’t put it in the formal...I don’t mean

you...he didn’t put it in the formal one in the depth in that what we want to do it but he could have without it being construed as an addition.

Boehm: Yes. Boehm: Well play lawyer on you now<Laughs; cannot understand his

comment.> Wheeler: Right - sorry Boehm: Whether or not it’s supported is a question that’s going to

be determined either between you and the examiner...probably not, it’s between you and another

Page 171: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10

lawyer someday when the case is litigated. The question is And again, the test is: Can the average person skilled in the art—the average designer of this type of software—can he read this document and make and use of your invention without inventing it? That’s the test. Now, whether he uses the word “zoom” in here and “magnification” later, that doesn’t mater as long as he would have gotten it. If it is so simple to build by reading this, you don’t need any subject matter. If you’re combining three elements A, B, and C, and A, B, and C are standard in the art, and you tell them these are standard in the art, go combine A, B, and C, that could be a one-page application. The average person will pick it up and he could. It’s a patent test. Are you with me? The more complex it is, the more you want it supported in this text.

Simon Bernstein: What if it is basically simple, and he just wrote it

as basically simple, does that support our position anyway though?

Boehm: Does that support our...Sure... Simon Bernstein: I mean, if we were to litigate against another person

that infringes on our... Boehm: An infringer. Simon Bernstein: Supportable for the sake of argument? Boehm: Right. Yes. That is a fair argument Simon Bernstein: OK so then I don’t know that, at least from first

blush Bernstein: That’s the provisional you’re reading though, right? Boehm: Aren’t they the same? I think they’re identical, aren’t

they? Boehm: You can check in his notebook. Boehm: Are there differences? Bernstein: Where did you find that piece that you just read? Wheeler: Is the reason...now continue answering my question...is the

reason we came to the formal in March of this year, which I didn’t realize that Joao. I thought that we had agreements for doing everything, but apparently Joao filed...

Boehm: For that one, yes. Wheeler: But he didn’t bother telling anybody. Boehm: That’s the one that we didn’t find out until way late.

Page 172: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

11

Wheeler: Okay, perhaps the reason that he did that was that was the easiest way to do it and the course of least resistance, and he thought he could go back...is there an amendment procedure?

Boehm: Yeah, there’s an amendment procedure. Wheeler: That he could do it a few months later or something like

that? Utley: We had a conversation before the formal filing, and, in

fact, I have my notes here from that conversation. Wheeler: Okay. Bernstein: And you mentioned that there was no zoom. Utley: Yeah, I said... Bernstein: Claim one. Utley: Yeah, Here are my notes. This is my original copy. Claims

do not reference stitching. The patent app does not cover providing enhanced digital image with zoom and pan controls. It covers for creating enhanced images to show zoom and pan functionality without distortion.” Those are my notes.

Bernstein: And you told him that. Simon Bernstein: Here’s a man that was cognizant of what was necessary

to be in there. How did a guy to file a patent without any of us—obviously, not me, but Eliot, Brian.?

Boehm: Jim wasn’t around yet. Simon Bernstein: Okay, but Chris was and so on and so forth—how did

they get through the crack that he did this? Wheeler: It didn’t get through the crack. Brian addressed it with

him. Bernstein: And everything is shredded now, too. Everything else is shredded. Utley: Kind of what he was going to do—his time factor—he was

going to...he didn’t think he would get this in. He would submit it and then would turn right around and amend it.

Boehm: Did he really say that? Bernstein: Yeah. Utley: I wouldn’t say amended, it was because of the stuff that

was coming... Bernstein: It was supposed to be in there.

Page 173: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

12

Utley: ...he was going to smash that all together and file it. Simon Bernstein: Was that the same time, Brian, that he was leaving

the firm? Bernstein: Yeah. Simon Bernstein: So would you say that probably… Utley: he knew at the time that he probably would be leaving? Utley: Right. Simon: But he wanted to get all of this in place so he could do

the billing and get that part of it in... Utley: I don’t know that. Boehm: Just speculating. Eliot Bernstein: What day did you give him those notes? Simon Bernstein: I don’t ever have to speculate on billing Utley: I don’t have my address book with me...I didn’t write the

date down, but it was the date that he was here. He came. Wheeler: He wanted to get it done to take care of you, make sure it

was filed for you. Simon Bernstein: That could be too. One other reason is... Wheeler: We’re just speculating. Wheeler: And I’m not trying to... <Everyone talking at once.> I

thought he was trying to work on our best behalf, but one time or two times that I met him, it seems like he was earnestly trying to help. Who knows? Maybe he was incompetent. I mean we’re only suggesting that it would have been incompetence

Bernstein: Well, the fact that it’s not in your patents, right up front,

this is the invention, is a gross neglect. And the fact that it doesn’t say, “this is what the invention is trying to do. This is the feature...”

Simon Bernstein: The point is not whether it’s gross neglect or not,

it’s what the damage is if there is...if, one, gross neglect is of any import; and two, what is the damage? it has caused iviewit. That’s what I think we need to ascertain here, and if we can ascertain it.

Utley: How do we fix it?

Page 174: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

13

Simon Bernstein: Of course lets try to fix it, if we can’t fix it then we’ll worry about…

Eliot Bernstein: Well 1st lets fix it <Everyone talking at once.> Boehm: Let me go over the procedures so everybody’s clear. Again,

on one end of the spectrum you file a very sparse, like a one-page provisional application, and it’s cheap, and the purpose of the provisional is to get you in line...it is to protect your date. What you’re trying to do is get the benefit of your priority date. When you invented it. When you’re in line in terms of whose the next guy that invented it. Whose the first inventor?

Simon Bernstein: Someone comes after you the second day after… Boehm: Who’s the first inventor, that’s what you’re after. Simon: I understand. I really understand...you don’t physically

stand... Boehm: Not physically in line in the patent office is right, not

or even in physically in line in order as well. Okay. One-year letter, the provisional expires and you have to file a non-provisional patent application, okay? Many times it’s identical. If you do a good job up front, you just file that, but you need to put claims on at this time. When I do a provisional, I try, if there is money and time up front, to do it once up front. I even write the claims. As a matter of fact, I don’t even like to file provisionals because there’s not much of an advantage. If you’ve got the time and the money up front to do a good job, well then, just file it as a regular application.

Simon: Understand that at the beginning, the time and the

money...I mean, the time was certainly available, but the money was a short substance. So it was obvious that Ray would be working in a most expeditious way.

Boehm: Well, that’s why the.. Simon: Which might have short-circuited us because of all of the lack of

funds. Wheeler: Well, that’s true because the filing date is 3/24/99 to

endorse that...that was very early in the game. Simon: We did it in your office Chris in your library...in your

conference room. The only meeting I had with him was while we were going to file the patent and that was in your office.

Boehm: Okay, 3/24/99 is the provisional application. Bernstein: That’s what I’m saying. Well, Chris,

Page 175: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

14

Boehm: So even at a year, he filed the second one with claims. Buchsbaum: Yeah two things happened during the year. One, the Company was

doing other things, even though they knew that was coming up, and two, I guess there wasn’t a whole lot of money to allocate towards doing that much.

Simon: Here’s what we did. We hired Ray Joao on the monies that

were raised by the investors; and then when Huizenga was coming in with their money, and when that money came in, we made a company decision that the first and foremost thing was to get the patent filed properly. So the fact that we were going to spend more money and get them completed at that point had already been made.

Simon: Okay, but prior to that, we were working on short forms. Then

after that, we started to raise capital, and we always knew that the priority was intellectual property, so were going to make sure that those got done right. Brian’s been working on it ever since, and I felt comfortable...I never did feel comfortable with Ray Joao...just an observation.

Boehm: Hmmm....is it all patent attorneys? <Laughter> Simon: No, no, there’s nothing wrong. He came in, he’s a nice guy, he

tried hard, you know, all the nice things, but his work always appeared sloppy, okay? And that’s the only thing I can say. You’re a patent attorney, you see what he did. If I’m wrong, then let me know; but to me, it looked like it was a little slipshod. And then he made some statements that really bothered me, too, that I don’t think he should have made to a client, and that is that he was filing his own patent. <Chuckling.> I mean, horseshit personally, I haven’t heard of a patent attorney in my life telling me that he’s an inventor filing his own patent. It really did bother me.

<Everyone talking at once.> Bernstein: Transmitting video files on a communication network for airlines

and... Simon: It probably meant nothing because I don’t think the guy was of

the nature to be stealing from us, but I don’t know! But I’ll tell you this, it did ring a bell. From a pure novice, it made me a little nervous. I asked Eliot why he was dealing with somebody, but we were assured that this was a good firm...

Boehm: Let me look back in my own spiel...here with the

provisional. You file a provisional, then within one year, you file a regular application with the claims. You can add claims to it; but if you add subject matter to it—in other words, if the zoom and pan concept wasn’t well described, you have lost the benefit of that first phase. Right. Now

Page 176: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

15

why is that going to hurt you? Two main reasons. One is if you put it on sale—offered it for sale— or you publicly disclosed it, there are certain regulations that say you’ve got to get something on file, so if you had publicly disclosed it, that would protect...getting the application on file will protect you from losing your date because of public disclosure and offer for sale. I think that’s what he was trying to get the earlier dates for.

Simon: Sure. Boehm: I spoke with Ray when I was trying to get all of these

files, and his comments to me were...when we were on the phone—you remember, we were asking him where was this stuff, and he said, well, he kept building on and he learned more it got in there. After I reviewed these applications, I agree that you’re learning more as you go along. I’m doing the same thing. So it’s kind of a learning curve.

Bernstein: If they ever find a zoom description that adequately

makes...especially in the claims...I mean, if you’re reading the claims...

Boehm: But Eliot, he’s going to say that the claims are of no

import right now. All you have to do... Bernstein: In the filings? Boehm: In the filings. I can go amend those right now. We can sit

down today and re-write them. Simon: If it can be amended amend it. There’s no problems. Boehm: There’s no problems. Simon Bernstein: There’s always maybe a little money that’s been

duplicated and that’s it. Boehm: Here’s the problem, and that’s what I want to get across

about that. If he’s trying to claim zoom and pan and I rewrite the claims to claim zoom and pan, and the examiner says, that’s great, but it’s new matter

Bernstein: But it’s in the provisional that you can zoom up to 1700 times. Boehm: If my claim is supported by the spec on that date, then

you’re fine. Bernstein: Isn’t it? Boehm: I can’t answer that without going into the... Bernstein: But when we read the provisional and we see that, it says...

Page 177: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

16

Simon Bernstein: Before this meeting took place, before we called this meeting, aren’t you privy to everything that’s been done?

Boehm: Oh, sure. I have everything. Simon Bernstein: So when Eliot asked you that question, why can’t you

answer it? Boehm: Because there’s no...in my opinion, there’s no clear-cut

answer, yes or no, on the quality of the work product. It’s a judgment call.

Bernstein: So that’s an exposure, and what if the judgment is against us? Wheeler: It’s [an examiner] judgment call is what we’re saying. Boehm: The damage? Wheeler: No, the examiner. <Everyone talking at once.> Wheeler: Whether the subject matter is new or not. Boehm: The examiner would...hold on...it’s... Wheeler: whose judgment call is it? Boehm: It could be the examiner’s, if he catches it. If it’s not

caught, and you get it to patent and you litigate the patent, ... at court. Or if the examiner catches it and I want to appeal it to the board of appeals in the patent office, it’s their judgment call

Wheeler: Okay, so we go to court and we’re fighting over the patent,

we would argue that it’s supported by the zoom 1700 in our language, and the other side would, say that’s baloney that’s too broad you didn’t describe it enough

Boehm: You didn’t have your invention... Bernstein: Then you lose. Boehm: We would lose only if you had a bar date come in there if

somebody else invented before you, or if you put something on sale...or if we offered something up for sale.

Bernstein: Which we did. Boehm: But the offer-for-sale date from our first meeting is not

until September. Bernstein: Right. Boehm: So the offers for sale won’t normally kick off a foreign... Simon Bernstein: Could you explain to me what offer for sale means?

Page 178: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

17

Boehm: Sure. As soon as you...you can’t get a patent on a product after you’ve been using it for more than a year. As soon as you publicly disclose your invention, you’ve got one year in the United States to get a patent on file, okay? Even if you don’t publicly disclose it...let’s say I’ve got a method of making [ ] in my factory, but it never gets outside. I’m starting to commercialize it, I’m making money off my invention...the commercialization date a year later is you can’t patent it in the U.S. So that’s that one-year grace period.

Simon Bernstein: Aren’t we within that period? Boehm: Yes. As far as we know, yeah. As far as we know. Utley: Yes-yes we are within that grace period Simon: Okay, somebody explain to me, what am I doing here? Why am

I sitting here? Are we saying that Ray Joao, other than being sloppy, but there’s not much damage that could have been done or can be done because we can fix it, which really would make me the happiest to hear that.

[not in transcript: PSL look at change above although minor it indicates perhaps the change in text to match new text] Utley: Can I jump in? Let’s just say there are two steps. We’re

going to make a filing this week; and to the best of our knowledge, we have swept up all this in this filing, and that will be within the commercialization period. The second thing that we’re going to do is we’re going to look at filing an addendum to the original formal filing to strengthen the claims – broaden the claims ... to the maximum extent that we can.

Boehm: if we need it...if we need it. Boehm: It’ll be a lot of this was swept up into the application. Utley: What we’re trying to do is protect the date day of March 24 Boehm: The original... Utley: The original date as March the 24th, but filing should

remain an objective. Simon Bernstein: Brian, if you broadened the language now, would that be a

red flag to the commissioner that you should have done it earlier? Or should we just say that this has always been there?

Buchsbaum: You mean the examiner of the commission Bernstein: We’re not going to be able to say it was in the claim. Simon Bernstein: What happens when you start those amendments or

broaden them is you start to admit that you didn’t do it.

Page 179: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

18

Boehm: Um, yes and no. We...I do that all the time. Simon Bernstein: It’s common then? Bernstein: If they do it all the time, then we have to do it. Simon Bernstein: But not until I feel more comfortable with it. Boehm: We normally have a search done. The patent examiner will do

a patentability search, and he will come back and reject it. The problem is if the claims are too narrow to begin with, he will not come back and reject it, he’ll allow it, and boom! Now I can’t amend it he’s in. [ ], we’re done. But I can file an continuation on it. I can keep dragging this out and get broader claims as long as the subject matter is...

Wheeler: So that’s why he stated it broadly versus narrowly? Boehm: No. <Somebody comes into the room to take food/and or drink orders.> Boehm: No, but as far as, doing it broadly, if you’re saying to

claim it broadly it’s our job to claim... as prior art which I doubt the claim is as broad as the [ ] allows...

Wheeler: Right. That’s what I’m saying. Boehm: And this is claimed broadly. Wheeler: Right. Boehm: And that’s the normal tactic, to claim things broadly, and

then wait for the examiner to come back and say, “Oh, you can’t get it that broad,” and then narrow down your claim.

Wheeler: Okay, so isn’t that what he was in part trying to do?

That’s what he’s been saying, yeah. Boehm: Yeah. Wheeler: Well, would that not be consistent with how patent

attorneys try to do things? Bernstein: Well, claim one, if you look at their claim one, Chris, that

they’ve written, it identifies... Wheeler: Who’s they? Bernstein: Foley & Lardner. It identifies what you’re trying to do. [not in transcript: Stephen note how Dicks name is deleted and Foley’s name

is screwed up, may indicate who was changing this transcript]

Wheeler: Okay, so maybe it should have been written differently.

Page 180: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

19

Boehm: You won’t get two patent attorneys to write the same

claims. Bernstein: Well, no, but you try to write the claim, and that’s the teaching

you and Steve both represented us here, to describe in its broadest term...

Boehm: Right. Bernstein: ...the invention. Boehm: Well, I can’t say that this isn’t broad. This is very

broad. This might be rejected for indefiniteness...I don’t know what it is...but now he’s got the opportunity to go back and...

Bernstein: And Brian, you know, there’s print film image in here, it’s all

supposed to be out of here. Wheeler: What you’re telling me is that in your forum of law there’s

always going back and refining and refining and refining that was wrong.

<Everyone talking at once; two different conversations going on at once.> Bernstein: This is like he just completely ignored what we said over a year.

He didn’t do a thing. Nothing. No comments, nothing. Utley: Almost nothing between the provisional and the formal

process. Boehm: And some people intentionally file narrow just to get

something on file. Then they can come back and repair it without damage to it.

Bernstein: But you don’t know that because an examiner... Simon Bernstein: You’ll never know that until you have a litigation. Bernstein: And then the question is what potential damage does that... Simon: That damage potential and that remedy will be then taking

place at that time, not now. Boehm: That I agree with. Even if we decide something now, you

won’t know what the outcome is for five and a half months. Simon Bernstein: ...wouldn’t happen anyway. You wouldn’t even know

that. Utley: Let me come back where I was. We are going to file on the

7th, Wednesday. As far as we know, that will cover every element of this invention that we have our arms around at this point in time.

Boehm: I believe so, yes.

Page 181: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

20

Utley: And we should go back and address what amendments we can

make to the claims in the filing of March this year and determine within the spec of the filing how broad those claims can be. I mean, that’s going to be the test. Within the spec of that filing, how much leverage have we got to broaden those claims so that we do have a priority date which is back about a year ago last March.

Bernstein: So we want to insert everything going into this one into that

one? Utley: No, it’ll be... Utley: It’ll be based upon the preamble, if you will, of what’s in

here. Boehm: We do reference it. As a matter of fact, this is the cover

page, Brian, of the application we’re going to file. Utley: Yeah, you reference it right there. Bernstein: But you can add claims to that one that you’re referencing that

would encompass what we have in today’s filing, which is really...we do want it in there.

Boehm: Yes, I can claims to the zoom and pan to get you back to

the original date in this one since I claim to this onto his.

Bernstein: Well, we should do both. Boehm: Well, you can’t get two patents on the same invention, so

it depends on where we want to go. Bernstein: Well, we want to definitely get it in on his because it gets us

an earlier date. Correct? Boehm: No. It’s a mess with these dates. What will happen

is...nobody will worry about the date unless there’s an occurrence, and that occurrence might... it’s a major problem. You won’t find out about that occurrence until you sue somebody, and then they go search in Australia, and they find a reference that somebody’s done this before in the library, and then you worry about the date. Were you before him?

Bernstein: Well, that’s what I’m worried about. I’d like to go back to our

earliest date. Wheeler: Can I point out one other thing? I know we look for the

word...Eliot looks for the word...I know we look for the word “zoom,” but there’s also other language in here too. Sometimes we get caught up in a word “zoom,” when what is zooming other than enlarging or reducing? And he does have language in here, “when enlarged or reduced, these pixels of the digital image becoming distorted a feature which

Page 182: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

21

typically results in the digital image being fixed to an original size or being available at low magnification, such as, for example, magnification from 200 to 300 times. These digital images are also difficult to enlarge to a full screen without a tremendous amount of distortion present in the end product.”

Wheeler: I mean, he’s describing I mean that’s zooming. Reducing and enlarging is zooming.

Bernstein: But he’s not putting it in your claims, that’s what he’s saying.

You see, this is different. Boehm: But it doesn’t matter right now Wheeler: But it doesn’t have to be if you’ve made mention. The

opinion is that it doesn’t have to be as long as he’s ...if you made mention...if you’ve gone on record of having described this

Boehm: This is the background that’s…problem. He’s got…. Boehm: That kind of invention, right, it’s got to state... Wheeler: Well, I didn’t get to that either. Bernstein: Right. And that’s where it’s not. Boehm: I pointed out a couple of things. It’s not as... Bernstein: Within the claims, the claims I’m reading, you could not... Boehm: The claims really don’t matter. Bernstein: In the patent? Boehm: The patent claims on a pending application basically don’t

matter. Bernstein: No, the ones he filed. Boehm: Yeah, they basically don’t matter. I can go back and change

them. Bernstein: Okay. Why? So we want to change back to the original one he’s

filed, put as much language as we can that we have today...oh, it’s all supported. Everything you wrote in that new one is supported in this one because it’s the same process.

Boehm: That’s the ultimate problem that Steve and I—Steve is

Becker, the other patent attorney that actually wrote these patents <in audible>—but that’s the ultimate problem that we’re worried about, and that’s the problem that you always worry about unless you first of all have a handle on the invention, inside and outside, and second of all, unless you really have a handle on Prior Art so you know where you

Page 183: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

22

want to go with this. Then you spend the time and the money to do a good original provisional filing. You’ve got a pretty good shot that it’s supported then. But when you file as, oh, I’ve got to try and cover this base, and when you do this kind of stuff, there’s always going to be a question of what was supported when.

Bernstein: But that’s fine. It is supported. Simon Bernstein: We’re off the subject matter. Bernstein: So we should definitely claim back to the earlier date? Boehm: We may get a rejection, or you may find out in litigation

five years from now, that none of this was supported. Some court may say that you never talked how to do this because your software wasn’t in the patent application.

Bernstein: It is, though. Boehm: Well, the code isn’t. They might say that these broad

diagrams and these flowcharts aren’t good enough. There’s always that risk.

Bernstein: But we’re trying to say that if they accept it, we want it to be

to the furthest filing date that we can, which is March 3, 2000, and that’s where it should lie; and if it’s going to get argued let it live or die at that date.

Boehm: That’s what we’re trying to do right now. Bernstein: Okay, good. So I’m under the impression from this point that

we’re going to encompass what we’ve learned what we’re filing even in this other one even into the original one so we can claim back to a March 3 filing date that claims back to our original March patent...

Boehm: March 24th, yeah, all of that will go back toward what is

supported in here, in the original. Not supported in ours. Bernstein: Okay. And it’s all going to be supportable because you’re going

to be able to pull up an image of the nature that we are discussing, and anybody with an eye can see that you’ve now done this.

Boehm: <Inaudible comment.> Bernstein: Well, you’re going to be able to show your invention, aren’t you? Boehm: No, no. Bernstein: You can’t? Boehm: You live or die on what’s in the specs. That’s why... Bernstein: Then get it in there.

Page 184: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

23

Boehm: Yeah. Bernstein: You can’t bring it in as evidence what the invention is? Boehm: Only outside evidence of what the average level of skill in

the art is, okay? If somebody says that the flowchart isn’t detailed enough, I’m going to go, “Oh, yes it is. Here’s 29 programmers who are going to testify and say yeah, I can do that in my sleep with this document.” So, there’s always going to be a battle about the level of support.

Simon: Maurice and I—that’s why I asked him to come in—Maurice and

I were talking because neither one of us understands patents or how you file them or invention actually. What we do understand a little bit about is the theory in business; and now that we know that Ray Joao was somewhat sloppy—I’m not suggesting that he’s not a fine attorney or anything else—you have been...you have reviewed all these patents that we have, whether there are eight or ten of them...

Boehm: There were eight original filings, and then...eight

original filings. Utley: Okay. And then how many do we have now? Boehm: Let’s look at the chart right now, but it’s basically.

We’ve got 17 applications that have been filed. These old ones are dead now because they were provisionals, and we’ve basically covered all...we pointed out basically covering two, maybe three inventions, so there’s not...I mean, if we were to start over, maybe you’d do this with two patents, maybe one patent. So.

Simon Bernstein: Who owns them? Boehm: Who owns it? iviewit Holdings, Inc. Utley: Owns all of them? Boehm: Except for...<Pause, and then text comes in that doesn’t

seem to be answering this open question.> ? Video playback over a network Wheeler: How did he get in? [not in transcript but this refers to Jeff Friedstein on an invention] Bernstein: He’s part of the invention. Boehm: An inventor – inventorship. Boehm: So I’ve so I’ve got a document right here for him to sign.

If he signs, then I do a couple of things. Bernstein: He signed that when you faxed it to him originally.

Page 185: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

24

Wheeler: I have copies of each one of these. Can I get a copy of

your [ ]? Boehm: of this? Sure. Wheeler: I have a copy of each one of these, I believe, or most of

them... Buchsbaum: Can I ask you a question? Your saying everybody that has an obligation to sign is on the list of names in these patents? Boehm: You preferably don’t...well, unless you have the new

ones... Wheeler: I don’t have the new ones, but... Bernstein: That’s an old one. That’s old. Buchsbaum: You’re saying everybody that has an obligation to sign is on the

list of names in these patents right, because the company was part because the Company was doing, is that what you’re saying? Because I don’t even know if everybody has signed because you may due corporate due diligence for financial reasons or if...and they will say has everybody signed off on these patents, and if three people don’t...if one person hasn’t, he has an obligation to sign?

Boehm: Brian, have you signed? Buchsbaum: Has everybody signed off on these? Brian? Boehm: See these tabs [refers to tabs for inventors Bernstein,

Shirajee, Friedstein and Rosario to sign] right here? That’s what I’m trying to do today. As soon as...I’m going to have people sign, me sign...all the inventors sign. I’ve got to get a hold of Jeff

Bernstein: I thought we did that when we filed. Boehm: You only signed one real document, didn’t you? Did you

actually a declaration? I know you didn’t sign an assignment over but you’re real clean on it because these are all based on the original filing , which is assigned to iviewit holding already

Bernstein: What’s that mean? Boehm: So all of the other inventors would have a helluva problem

trying to say they owned anything. Simon: Again, this is a little off the subject matter, but I have asked

Chris about it before. If something were to happen to iviewit, and it were it went into bankruptcy, what would happen to those patents? How would those patents [ ]?

Wheeler: It depends on which at iviewit you’re talking about.

Page 186: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

25

Simon Bernstein: The one that they are held in. Wheeler: Well, first of all, holdings is held separately

versus...we’re operating the company out of a separate entity, correct? iviewit.com. So, let me think there...

Buchsbaum: The operating company is iviewit.com. Simon Bernstein: All I’m concerned about is, for example, that the largest

creditor...it wouldn’t be a creditor, it would actually be an investor...would then...

Bernstein: They’re not a creditor. Buchsbaum: Okay, then the largest creditor could come in and pierce the

corporate veil of iviewit.com and say that this is just a way of protecting the only valuable asset of the company away from creditors. Is there a possibility of that?

Boehm: Obviously there is. Wheeler: There is a possibility, but that’s one of the main reasons…

But the loan, they made the company who wrote the patent, join in as a guarantor anyway on it.

Bernstein: Well, that would be all of us. All of those would be all of the

investors getting a piece back? Wheeler: No, no, no. On the $800,000 loan, those people, it’s

secured by the patent. Simon Bernstein: What about the $600,000...or the other $800,000 loan? Wheeler: The others weren’t loans. The others were equity, as I

recall. Simon Bernstein: No, no, they have claims. Bernstein: Well, they’re supposed to be converted to equity, which is

another issue. Utley: But there where note holders Wheeler: No, because there was no quid pro quo at that time. The

note holders I mean you can’t go back and do it, we had that talk Si

Wheeler: I mean, you can’t go back... Bernstein: The note? I believe they’re not final, even though we told people

they would be by this time. Wheeler: The note holders took their money in without taking

security. Now you...<Indecipherable. Everyone talking at once.> ...new considerations...I said now you can’t … back to a failure to the corporation

Page 187: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

26

Simon Bernstein: …Board if everybody that was a creditor found, everybody that was a note holder at that point there was no what would you call it - problem

Buchsbaum: and that would be protected by the courts anyway usually. The

court would see this probably as a you know a fraud Wheeler: You could have two frauds: fraud of creditors and fraud of

shareholders. Simon: No, Chris I’m not worried about fraud. I’m really concerned

with the fact that what we did here, the last loan that we took in, from...

Bernstein: Crossbow. Simon: No, not from Crossbar... Bernstein: Crossbow. Wheeler: Crossbow Simon: ...is secured by the... Wheeler: ...the term of the deal, right. Simon: And that’s perfectly acceptable to me except that everybody

else that had loans prior to that at that time should have been considered with the same equity because …posses able and Chris told me that that was the perfect time to get it done

Bernstein: Yeah, but would Huizenga lose his? Bernstein: Would Huizenga lose his stake in it to Crossbow? Wheeler: No, no, no, it wasn’t...I said that if there was going to

be new considerations from those people, we all could of…?? Simon: We all could have put in another $10. I mean, at the time we did

it with Crossbow, we should have made sure that our other people...

Bernstein: Are protected. Utley: No, no, no. We would have had to issue new contracts out

for everyone. Wheeler: There would have had to have been some material

consideration, not just $10. It would have been… Simon: So it would have been $10,000... Wheeler: Well, then, you could have...Crossbow, we didn’t even talk

about Crossbow at that moment, and I said you couldn’t go back and just collateralize. You couldn’t go back for money that you already put in. But if you put in new

Page 188: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

27

considerations that you could demand as a condition to be collateral.

Simon: What we should have done, or what we maybe we still

should do to protect our original group of investors, is to have them pony up a few more thousand or whatever you think is legitimate, and amend the contracts to protect them as well.

Utley: That’s new subject matter. Simon: Well, I only brought it up because it had to do with the

patents. Utley: I know but can we finish the patent discussions before we

bring up new subject matter. Simon: You can, but I want to make sure that we do finish. Utley: No, I agree with you Si. Si: The problem is that I made claims to certain people like

Don Kane, who put op $100,000, who thinks... Bernstein: Let’s get back to that. No, let’s get back to it. It’s a definite

point. There are people. Buchsbaum: This is a business issue for later. Bernstein: No, we’re asked by these very people these questions. Boehm: Did you get your question answered on the... Buchsbaum: Yeah, I just wanted to understand...you know, I got an answer. It

had to do with the obligations Si I was trying to understand if somebody does due diligence now with regards to understanding what is there and what has to be done, like those yellow tabs. [Yellow tabs indicate signatures of missing inventors]

Boehm: Yeah, but after...I find everybody, we can get guys to

sign. Buchsbaum: We aren’t that many. I don’t know on that sheet what you have,

but I don’t think there are that many names. There’s what about five names?

Buchsbaum: Therearen’t that many...you don’t have that many. I don’t know on

that sheet you have, I don’t think there’s that many names. Boehm: No, there’s not. Boehm: So we have everybody but Jeff, if we can get Jude and Zak. Buchsbaum: You just have to get people around and sign. Boehm: No, that should not be and issue.

Page 189: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

28

Buchsbaum: That might be questions brought up when people do do due diligence. Is everybody else on these?

Bernstein: That’s why we’re closing it. Right? Boehm: We’ll record what was in the patent office(…???) can do. Utley: The other piece that’s not in any part of the original

filings, which is the reduction of the technology to a disciplined process—the mathematical representations of what’s in and how it works and stuff like that.

Wheeler: (…???) Buchsbaum: That will also be included in there, right? Utley: We’ll put it in the new filing...one of the new filings. Wheeler: I form my opinion of everything, and we can talk about post

solutions but I think Brian wants to get this back on track, but to me there’s bad news and there’s good news in this. The bad news is, just like anything in life, perhaps we would have liked to have tidied up some things better, like to have had Mr. Joao tidy them up. The good news is considering the state that the corporation was in in the early stages and the variable limited resources that it had, I’m glad that we have an awful lot on record that we do have on record, to be honest with you.

Simon: As long as it’s not to the detriment of what we thought we

were filing, I have no...I couldn’t agree with you more. Wheeler: But I think I like your approach, and I assume it’s your

approach, too, in that I assume that you’re doing a fairly comprehensive new one, but then you’re going to probably...

Utley: Claim priority back to the old one. Wheeler: Right, but you’re also going to do your amendment because

now we’re finding out that it’s not an uncommon procedure and it’s not a red flag.

Utley: Two things: the new filing on Wednesday will claim priority

all the way back for as much as possible back to March 24th last year. Second, we will look at the March 24th year 2000 filing and determine how we should amend that to include additional claims and broaden that filing so that it more fully represents the knowledge of the invention as of that time.

Bernstein: Does it claim all the way back? Wheeler: It’ll go all the way back... Boehm: as long as you don’t go outside what was described.

Page 190: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

29

Bernstein: No, the math is just describing the original invention. Boehm: We’ll, I’ll never know the answer to that until it’s

litigated. Utley: Due diligence. Bernstein: Right, but from your perspective here, that’s what we’re setting

up. Correct? Boehm: We’re going to try. Bernstein: Okay. Boehm: The question never even gets answered half the time in the

real world. I will claim priority back on the document, and then if the examiner doesn’t care, nobody cares

Bernstein: It gets through. Boehm: It gets through. Wheeler: Would it be a fair assessment—I’m posing this more as a novice,

not as an attorney here—since we’re not at IBM and we don’t sit down at the very beginning and work out all these equations and all that, that in an invention such as this by a Ma-and-Pa type of inventor, and now since we’re getting into the nuts and bolts and really uncovering, in essence, what’s behind it, as Brian dissected it as we moved along, but that’s all we’re doing? I mean, that Ma-and-Pa inventors do that as they go along? They add the flesh to the bones as they go along?

Boehm: Boy, that happens, and we try not...we try to minimize the

amount because if the flesh that you have to add is new subject matter and you’ve already sold your invention a year ago, you’re dead.

Wheeler: Well no, Let me at it a different way. It does this, but I can’t

describe how it does this. But now we find out...we tell you what it does, now we’re telling you in detail how it does it.

Boehm: Yeah, in terms of we claimed it properly. Wheeler: So I’m not adding flesh in defense... Simon: New flesh. Wheeler: ...new flesh. I’ve got the box, now I’m disclosing what’s in the

box including the gears and how it works. Bernstein: No. Utley: No. Here’s what the big difference is. The original filing

claims a process for print film imaging.

Page 191: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

30

Bernstein: Well, that was all stricken, by the way. That’s why I’m having a big problem. I was going to get to that next, Brian.

Utley: Okay, good. Bernstein: But we have discussed with Ray Joao numerous times to take out

the references to print images out of this right here. Over the course of the year in the 59,000 modifications back and forth, we continuously pushed him away from the words that I see in this filing, and that’s what’s so disturbing to me because we sat here when...

<End Side 1; begin Side 2> Buchsbaum: That would be conditional, probably. Simon: Right, they probably will. Wheeler: Their not going to want in fact their going to say take it

off aren’t they Utley: No Crossbow notes would be converted to equity when someone

else comes in. Si? Of course, and that’s gone. And those issues are gone. Wheeler: Well, Yeah, so that it was the …it was intelligent way to

do it...and I’m not... Buchsbaum: Crossbow would probably manage the million dollars anyway Wheeler: By the way, if we did do a deal by which we tried to

collateralize it even further, then we’d have to have some sort of provisions as well to get rid of your collateral.

Simon: Yes, of course. As soon as it converts to equity, it’s gone. Wheeler: But I mean, what if you didn’t convert yours to equity[ ]? Simon: Then you’d have to lose it anyway. Wheeler: But at a point. Utley: It just becomes a normal stockholder... Simon: Right. Wheeler: It would have to drop away or something. For

instance, it would drop away when theirs drops away. Utley: The stockholders, in the event of a default, the

stockholders, the distribution that takes place, includes all the stockholders according to the rank of the preference. So the preferred get first cut, and the common stockholders get the second cut, whatever is left for

Page 192: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

31

distribution. But of that amount[ ] unless there’s nothing to distribute.

Simon: Not if one of the preferred stockholders has a

collateralized position and the others don’t. If one of these preferred stockholders...

Utley: There’s no stockholders that have a collateralized

position. Simon: That’s true. Buchsbaum: You’re talking about the small amount of money, that have any

value, it should be reasonable value, and those would be taken out anyway.

Simon: Except that we seem to feel that we have an obligation to

those, to protect the other stockholders who...had all good…I think its prudent anybody to ask permission

Buchsbaum: A good way to do it is the way he said to do it, and that’s to

[?]. Utley: Will you look it up and see what it’s going to take to do

it? Wheeler: I’ll coordinate that Utley: I’m not clear. What are we trying to do? Are we trying to

provide for collateral for new money coming in, or are we trying to...? We’re not trying to collateralize money which has already been...

Simon: I don’t know. Can you handle the old money the same way? I don’t

think so. Wheeler: We have to see. We might be able to consider it for the

full amount in the view of the fact that if you had enough substantial new consideration, ...

Buchsbaum: The problem is that you may have to go back to Crossbow to do

that, and you may be better off just to do it on subsequent money.

Simon: Well, but to ask Don Kane to put up $10,000 when he’s got

$160,000 in the...$135,000 in the company, and then he only gets 10%...$10,000 worth of consideration...I’d like to protect his whole $165,000, which is what he has.

Buchsbaum: The answer is you go back and ... Utley: I don’t think you can do that because that’s equity. It’s

in common stock. Bernstein: It’s not equity. It’s a loan.

Page 193: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

32

Bernstein: Don had the stock prior to his putting up the money. These are loans. There’s $400,000 that’s on the books. Then there’s another $100,000 besides what he put in originally. Sal has a loan on the books of $25,000. Your guy should have had a loan on the books for $250,000.

Utley: No, that’s equity. Okay. Simon: At any rate, <tape cuts out[tape does not cut out on my

tape]>...While I got Chris here I’m going to take advantage of his being here.

Simon: One of the issues we tried to do when we raised the last $80,000

that came form Eliot’s two friends Anderson and Mitch Welsch. [ ]

Bernstein: Ken Anderson. Simon: It was my knowledge, according to Jerry, that those monies

were to go to Eliot, and then Eliot was theoretically to loan the money to the company so that Eliot would have a loan on the books and he would have sold his stock because Eliot has some personal needs that he needs to accomplish as soon as we get funded or we get some money in here. I’m under the understanding again. It could be way off.

Bernstein: How do we work that out, Brian? The 10? A loan? Utley: Yeah, that’s better because otherwise you will get taxed. Bernstein: Will they loan me $10,000 to pay the taxes? Simon: Who loaned you? Bernstein: The company just today? Utley: So I took that as a loan? Utley: Yes. Bernstein: The money went to the company, which spent the money already—the

stock money—from Ken and Mitch. Simon: You haven’t sold any of your stock? Bernstein: No. Simon: You just made an officer’s loan. Wheeler: Right. Simon: Is that how you handle it? Simon: You loan the loan back by some method at some point. Bernstein: Right. Correct.

Page 194: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

33

Buchsbaum: That’s the way to do that? Utley: Well, there’s no tax impact... Simon: but he would have had a [ ] gain. Bernstein: Right. And there were other things at the time...right, things.

At the time, the company needed the money and I didn’t...not that I didn’t

Simon: Sure, I just wanted to make sure that it was done. I didn’t

even know ….???that bank account Bernstein: Not that I didn’t. Simon: Let’s finish up. Utley: Eliot, let me summarize. I want to make sure we have an

agreement of this meeting. Let me interject two final two points that we kind of skimmed over. One is you said that we want to go ahead and change the claims to go all the way back on this US, but we have sort of got covered on the one we’re filing? The one we’re filing is a PCT. It won’t pop to the US for 18 or 30 months. Or we could file another PCT and a US, then the claims would hit the US. In other words what I’m saying is it would matter if we do the claims here. We could either fix up the claims here or file a PCT and a parallel US if you want US patent protection sooner. The PCT will split out to US, but not until later. You can file a US anytime...

Simon: Let me ask you. You’re not a lawyer, what do you recommend? Boehm: Well, it’s more money up front. Simon: How much money? A great sum of money? Boehm: No, it’s another grand to file. Simon: For what we’ve spent already, let’s do it. Bernstein: And that protects us better? Boehm: Quicker. You’ll get a quicker US patent. It’ll get you in

line quicker. Utley: The other point that you’re making because in this week’s

filing we are going to claim all the way back... Boehm: We’re going to claim all the way back but this is what is

supported Utley: Right. So if we claim all the way back to March of last

year, do we need to touch the filing that’s already in motion?

Page 195: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

34

Boehm: The one that’s out there? Utley: Yes the PCT. Do we need to touch that? Boehm: No, no. There’s a PCT and a US. Utley: Right. Boehm: The PCT, we will get a search back. In fact, we should get

it in a month or so, and then you’ll decide what you want to do with that, what foreign country and possibly the US, but he files the same thing basically in the US, and now it’s in line in the US.

Utley: Right, right. But what I’m saying is if the new filing that

we make this week creates priority all the way back and embraces all of the teachings of the prior...

Boehm: Zoom and pan stuff. Utley: Zoom and pan stuff, filings, do we need to go and modify

and update and amend those earlier filings? Boehm: Those other two. Buchsbaum: That’s a good question would there be new recommendation? Boehm: It depends on two things. One is how quickly do you want to

get the US for the new filing? This is a PCT that we’re preparing right now. If we file the US right away with it, then it makes less difference.

Bernstein: Less? Boehm: Less difference because he’s in line sooner. That’s all. It

just depends on how soon you want to get your patent. Bernstein: Well, we want to go for the sooner. Utley: The sooner the better. Boehm: The sooner the better then let me play with this Bernstein: Right. Boehm: Plus you’re gonna get an office action back from the patent

office on him... Bernstein: On that. Boehm: For free. There’s nothing involved. Bernstein: Right, but it doesn’t claim anything. Boehm: I don’t know yet. It claims...he’ll get this blasted. It

will will be rejected. Bernstein: Yeah.

Page 196: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

35

Boehm: It will be rejected. The question is do we want to fix

this, or where are we with the other things? So there’s no decisions to be made now on this, it’s just that do you want to file a US and a PCT?

Utley: The answers yes Boehm Yes Bernstein: And we do want to fix the original work? Boehm: We can decide that later. Bernstein: Well, why would we leave it unfixed? Boehm: Because you can’t get two patents on the same thing. So if

we fix this, you’re not going to get it over here. Bernstein: But then we lose the date. Buchsbaum: No we don’t. Simon: That’s what he’s saying. Buchsbaum: You really don’t lose the date. Wheeler: So were not going to…??? Utley: Because he’s claiming all the way back. Boehm: We may not. It depends on... Bernstein: May and less, these are words that scare me. Boehm: You don’t like that, do you? Bernstein: No, I do not. Boehm: But I don’t think this is the right time to make that

decision now. Utley: What is the right time? Boehm: When we get some office action back on this patent. And

when we hear from the patent office, we’ll sit down say do we want to fix this, or do we want to fix this, or have we uncovered some killer Prior Art that blows this whole thing out of the water? You don’t want to spend money right now if you can avoid it.

Wheeler: We’ve never done a search, have we? Boehm: We did a search...I’ve done a search on...<Everyone talking

at once.> on a dozen patents that really weren’t on point. We didn’t find any close Prior Art; and all I can tell these...

Page 197: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

36

Wheeler: This was on imaging and video? Boehm: Yeah. Wheeler: That’s incredible. Buchsbaum: Yeah, it was huge. Bernstein: If it is found impossible to do these things, why would people be

doing them? Boehm: I want to make...the tape recorders off, right? <Recorder

turned off> Buchsbaum: What does PCT mean? Boehm: Patent Cooperation Treaty. It’s a formal filing process for

filing foreign patents. Buchsbaum: Oh, that’s the thing with the different countries? Boehm: Yeah. So we file one application that splits out later to

different countries. Buchsbaum: Two years? Boehm: Yes, but we’ll get indicators before that. Our search comes

in nine months, which is three months from now for the first one. But, Brian, they’re searching this claim; this claim is crap. You’re not going to get a good search on it.

Buchsbaum: So what? In six months or nine months, we’ll start hearing from

them? Boehm: Yeah. Bernstein: Well then we should do an alternate search on what you have. Boehm: It’s a judgment call. I mean, you asked me this question a

while ago, and you said what would it take to get me comfortable because I’m kind of a pessimist and I’m an engineer, so I have that background where I look at it that it’s half empty. It would take more searching, and it would take more searching inside the technical articles. And it would take quite a bit of work. I mean, I guess $5,000, I don’t know. It depends on what happens. Then, again, that will only raise you to a different level of comfort, that’s all.

Bernstein: And then they’ll say the same thing, and for another five grand,

well get Rays to another indiscriminate level of comfort. Boehm: Exactly. But we don’t have to do that because we will be

getting an article... Bernstein: Right, from the searches.

Page 198: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

37

Boehm: And from your investors because if I was working for

them... Buchsbaum: Let me put it another way. If you have somebody that will take

this company and auction off the technology, okay? As it is existing...as it is unfolding, okay? And as the licenses come along. It’s strategy. Some of these people bid on that. What are they really bidding on? It’s potentials, right? Basically?

Boehm: Well, no, there’s a present value of the technology. If

you... Buchsbaum: Well, not if you don’t have patents issued on it. Boehm: Well, sure there is. Sure there is. If he can get a royalty

based on 2% of their products—or whatever it is—per minute, whether or not it is patented, absolutely.

Buchsbaum: My question is at what point does it become...is the efficacy

there significantly enough from the standpoint of others now that would be doing their own review. You know, like, say a firm that would do the option. They’d have their patent lawyers take a look at what you’re doing to see if they think it has a real good value. At what point does that come along? Is it six or nine months from now, basically? Is that when that probably would start to unfold as far as having a real relevant potential value? I’ve been trying to get a general..

Boehm: I understand your question. I guess I would answer... Buchsbaum: General idea. Boehm: If your licensees are spending a lot of money... Buchsbaum: On your technology. Boehm: On your technology, they’re going to have their patent

attorneys right now, today, go do a search, and they will have a good indication. They may come up with Prior Art that blows you out of the water. They may find nothing. They may not search it. They may say, we don’t care about patents; it’s the technology.

Buchsbaum: Reality, though, this is not the...more likely six to nine months

as some licenses start to unfold here and as things start to come back, and that’s when this thing will start to have some relevance more than it does right now? From the standpoint of the...

Boehm: That the patent will have relevance? Buchsbaum: No, no. The technology has a value that can be created in the

marketplace and turned to bidding.

Page 199: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

38

Wheeler: Well, you can look at the technology as almost value added

to the company. I mean, the company has worth because of the process and what we can provide and we can build it up. But it’ll even astronomical more worth assuming that we have...that it’s totally proprietary to ourselves. Now some companies have great technology that’s proprietary to themselves, and it doesn’t earn them money. For instance, Wang Laboratories went down the tubes. They had the best word processing, and they had the best of everything else. And, of course, a lot of their technology is licensed out there, as I understand it, to VisionAire and to...they did the true ones, and...

Buchsbaum: It’s was also to get to the possible strategy for the company’s

investors, okay? Utley: Right. Buchsbaum: Or it may be at some point a window of huge value placed on this

technology where you may take advantage of it. Wheeler: Well, and to our investors, we have said, and we can

continue to say, we are attempting to create a pool of intellectual property and protect it.

Buchsbaum: Okay. Wheeler: But there can be no assurances that this will withstand the

test of time. Boehm: That is exactly it. And you never want even when it issues.

You will get a good comfort level when you have a US patent issued in your hands.

Bernstein: Why? Boehm: Because you’ve had an examination. Buchsbaum: Because you’ve got some review. Boehm: Because you have a presumption of validity. Bernstein: That’s why I’d like to get that first one corrected because

that’s the first one that’s going to be examined. Boehm: No, we’ve got one...oh, yeah, it is. It’s the US. Bernstein: And therefore I want that to be approved. The investors are going

to say... Buchsbaum: The first one that we’re going to be issued will be issued

in May. Bernstein: And the investors are going to say what happened to patent one.

Page 200: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

39

Boehm: 3/10 of 2000 was when it was filed. Typically a year...they’ll get around to it within a year. Maybe it’ll issue in. 18 months to two years

Buchsbaum: From right now or from then? Boehm: From 3/10. Bernstein: What is the process speed up? If you can show... Boehm: If you can show somebody’s infringing, you can have an

expedited examination; but that doesn’t always buy you much time, and you really have to get into the patent office the first time, and I’m not sure we can do that.

Wheeler: Wouldn’t a good example of one way be that Apple had really

great patents, and Microsoft was still able to come in and duplicate it, even though everyone knows they violated the hell out of the patent of Apple.

Boehm: Um, hum. Wheeler: So I mean you could have a good patent and it could still

go down the tubes. But another one I’m thinking of that did stand up was Polaroid had patents and Kodak tried to come in and do everything to distinguish, and wasn’t able to and got clobbered, right? And there’s probably a lot of every variation in between.

Boehm: Yeah. Wheeler: [Not in transcript this is strange here] Wheeler: Are those the two extremes? Boehm: Yeah, Wheeler: those would be the two extremes. Utley: Especially when it comes to method patents and software

patents. Wheeler: Yeah, what was the first thing that Brian Boehm: ...and the more patents you have, the less chances. It’s

like putting out mine fields...less chances people to get around you. But if the original concept is broad enough and claimed right, Yeah, we can be okay.

Boehm: But what, the test - I guess what you’re asking for is when

we have that first claim promised, probably within two years of when you filed, which is March 10, 2000, I would probably say

Utley Doug come back, close it out again. <Inaudible comment.>

Page 201: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

40

Boehm: There were two points. One was the PCT and I got that in correct.

Buchsbaum: Right. Boehm: The second point was everybody was saying you don’t destroy

documents. Lawyers do destroy documents; and in the patent realm, it is common practice to get rid of all of our attorney notes, but it depends on what the practice is in your law firm and your corporation. Most patent attorneys who use this practice that I’ve seen, it happens after it issues. You never do it before. I don’t even like to do it then. I like to do it after all the...

Bernstein: I don’t even understand why you’re destroying it. If you’ve got

nothing to hide and everything’s on the up-and-up. Boehm: But throw in the concept that I’m leaving the law firm.

Let’s say I’m leaving the law firm, my notes, who’s going to follow up and destroy my notes to benefit you, because I do want them six months from now. Maybe that’s what he’s doing.

Wheeler: Yeah, he could have done it to protect you. He didn’t want

them around in the other office. Bernstein: I don’t know. I don’t know. I don’t even know if he knew he was

leaving then. Boehm: Now it’s intentional! Utley: But I want to comeback were going to file PCT and US on the

new one. We’re going to wait for the old one to get kicked back; and when it gets kicked back by the examiners, we’ll then determine how we want to amend it. Is that what you said?

Boehm: No, I want to say something on that again. I think if you

want a patent to pop quickly—if that’s the goal, which sounds like it’s a good goal—then, no, I think we should amend the claims with a preliminary amendment before the examination.

Utley: A preliminary amendment? Boehm: A preliminary amendment. Bernstein: Encompassing everything we can throw in there? Boehm: Yeah, whatever support there is. But a preliminary

amendment on whatever it is on the... Bernstein: So we’re going back to the original Boehm: So I’ll fix the 119 case yeah

Page 202: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

41

Bernstein: March 3, 2000, to encompass what we’ve embraced. Utley: When will you be in a position to recommend what that

amendment will look like? Bernstein: It should look a lot like the one we just did. Boehm: Yeah, that’s... Bernstein: That’s my guess. Utley: When will you be in a position to... Boehm: I’d have to...a few days... Utley: About a week or so? Boehm: Oh, Yeah, within a week, sure. Bernstein: Okay. That’s good. <End of meeting.>

Page 203: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

EXHIBIT I

Page 204: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

HAND NOTES OF MR. JOAO IN FILIPECK MEETING AT RESPONDENT’S

OFFICE

Page 205: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

Page 206: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

Page 207: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

Page 208: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

Page 209: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

SCHEDULING OF THE FILIPECK MEETING

Page 210: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

HAND NOTES OF MR. WHEELER IN FILIPECK MEETING AT

RESPONDENT’S OFFICE

Page 211: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

Page 212: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

LETTER OF MR. COLTER RELYING ON RESPONDENT’S OPINION

Page 213: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

Page 214: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

LETTER OF MR. WHEELER APPEALING TO PARTNERS

Page 215: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

EXHIBIT J

Page 216: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

DEPOSITION OF RESPONDENT IN THAT CERTAIN LITIGATION

AVOIDING QUESTION ON MPEG LA, LLC

Page 217: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

Page 218: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

Page 219: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

Page 220: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

Page 221: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

Page 222: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

Page 223: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

Page 224: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

Page 225: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

Page 226: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

EXHIBIT K

Page 227: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

RESPONDENT POINTS TO HIS LACK OF LACK OF BILLINGS50

50Supra Note 30 at 4.

Page 228: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

BILLINGS OF MR. WHEELER FROM PROSKAUER BOCA RATON, FLA.

OFFICE

Page 229: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

Page 230: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

Page 231: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

Page 232: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

EXAMPLE OF PROSKAUER BILLING SUMMARY…WHERE IS

RESPONDENT IN LIGHT OF PRIOR BILLINGS

Page 233: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

EXHIBIT L

Page 234: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

THE FLORIDA BAR RESPONSE OF MR. WHEELER THAT NAMES WARNER

BROS. A CLIENT OF RESPONDENT

Page 235: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

LETTER OF MR. COLTER CLAIMING OVERLAPPING OF MR.

BERNSTEIN’S TEACHINGS

Page 236: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

Page 237: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

EXHIBIT M

Page 238: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

RESPONDENT IS UNAWARE OF HIS INTEREST IN PROSKAUER

Page 239: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

RESPONDENT IS UNCERTAIN OF HIS START DATE AT PROSKAUER

Page 240: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

SEE COMPACT DISC, ENCLOSED, OF A TAPED CONVERSATION OF MR.

SHIRAJEE ADVISING OF DISCLOSURES TO RESPONDENT

Eliot
See CD Folder for Audio Clip - Exhibits for Rubenstein - Exhibit M
Page 241: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

ELECTRONIC MAIL MESSAGE FROM SIMON L. BERNSTEIN, FORMER

CHAIRMAN OF THE BOARD OF DIRECTORS OF THE COMPANY

Page 242: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

Page 243: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

STATEMENT OF GUY IANTONI, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT OF SALES OF

THE COMPANY

Page 244: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

STATEMENT OF JAMES F. ARMSTRONG, FORMER VICE PRESIDENT OF

SALES & MARKETING OF THE COMPANY

Page 245: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

Page 246: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

STATEMENT OF SHAREHOLDER MITCHELL A. WELSCH, CFP

Page 247: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

PASSAGES FROM DEPOSITION OF JERRY LEWIN A PRINCIPAL OF

GOLDSTEIN LEWIN, AND THE COMPANY’S FORMER OUTSIDE

AUDITOR51

51Deposition of Gerald Lewin at 16-17, Proskauer Rose LLP v. Iviewit.com, Inc. et. al. Case No. CA 01-

04671 AB (Circuit Court of the 15th Judicial Circuit in and for Palm Beach County, Florida filed May 2,

2001).

Page 248: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

…STILL MORE MR. LEWIN52

52Supra Note 49 at 55-56.

Page 249: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

EXHIBIT N

Page 250: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

SECTION 115 OF PATENT ACT

Page 251: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

EXHIBIT O

Page 252: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

LETTER OF MR. COLTER DESCRIBING RESPONDENT’S INVOLVEMENT

Page 253: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

ANOTHER LETTER OF MR. COLTER DESCRIBING RESPONDENT’S

INVOLVEMENT

Page 254: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

STATEMENT OF CEO LAMONT

Page 255: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

Page 256: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

Page 257: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

Page 258: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

Page 259: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

EXHIBIT P

Page 260: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

FOLEY & LARDNER’S REQUEST FOR MR. JOAO’S DOCUMENTS

Page 261: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

Page 262: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

Page 263: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

Page 264: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

TRANSCRIPTION OF TELECONFERENCE53

REFERENCING MR. JOAO’S

DESTRUCTION OF NOTES AND OTHER PATENT MATERIALS

53Footnote transcription…

Page 265: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

Page 266: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

RESPONDENT’S DEPOSITION STATEMENT THAT HE TAKES NO NOTES

Page 267: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

EXHIBIT Q

Page 268: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint
Page 269: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint
Page 270: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint
Page 271: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint
Page 272: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint
Page 273: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint
Page 274: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint
Page 275: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint
Page 276: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint
Page 277: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint
Page 278: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint
Page 279: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint
Page 280: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint
Page 281: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint
Page 282: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint
Page 283: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint
Page 284: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint
Page 285: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint
Page 286: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint
Page 287: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

EXHIBIT R

Page 288: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

COMPANY REVENUE PROJECTIONS

Page 289: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

EXHIBIT S

Page 290: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

Page 291: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

MPEG 2 LICENSORS

Page 292: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

Page 293: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

MPEG 2 LICENSEES

Page 294: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

Page 295: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

Page 296: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

Page 297: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

Page 298: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

Page 299: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

Page 300: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

Page 301: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

Page 302: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

Page 303: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

Page 304: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

Page 305: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

EXHIBIT T

Page 306: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

LETTER OF MR. WHEELER TO ROSSMAN

Page 307: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

LETTER OF MR. WHEELER TO GEMAL SEEDE

Page 308: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

DEPOSITION OF MR. WHEELER STATING RESPONDENT DID NO PATENT

WORK

ADMISSION BY MR. WHEELER OF CONSULTING WITH RESPONDENT54

54Supra Note 31 at 5.

Page 309: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

DEPOSITION OF MR. WHEELER STATING WHAT RESPONDENT NEEDS

TO DETERMINE THE PATENTABILITY OF THE COMPANY’S INVENTIONS

ELECTRONIC MAIL MESSAGE OF MR. WHEELER ARRANGING

TELECONFERENCE WITH RESPONDENT TO DISCUSS HIS OVERSIGHT OF

THE PATENT PROSECUTION PROCESS

Page 310: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

EXHIBIT U

Page 311: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

DEPOSITION OF MR. UTLEY STATING THAT HE NEVER DISCUSSED THE

COMPANY’S INVENTIONS WITH RESPONDENT

DEPOSITION OF MR. UTLEY STATING THAT HE HAD CONVERSATION

WITH RESPONDENT TO APPRISE HIM OF THE STATUS OF THE

COMPANY’S PATENT PROSECUTION PROCESS PRIOR TO A CONTRACT

WITH WARNER BROS.

Page 312: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

Page 313: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

MR. UTLEY REITERATES THAT RESPONDENT HAD NO ROLE

MR. UTLEY AGAIN STATES RESPONDENT HAD NO ROLE

Page 314: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

MR. UTLEY, REVERSING COURSE, AND NAMING RESPONDENT AS

ADVISOR

MR. UTLEY, REVERSING COURSE AGAIN, ASKING WHAT ROLE TO

PROVIDE FOR RESPONDENT

Page 315: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

MR. UTLEY EXPRESSLY PASSES PATENT INFORMATION FOR

RESPONDENT’S REVIEW

Page 316: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

EXHIBIT V

Page 317: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

ELECTRONIC MAIL MESSAGE OF MR. KASSER ALLEGING MR. HERSH,

FORMER CHIEF FINANCIAL OFFICER OF THE COMPANY, WITH FRAUD

PERTAINING TO REVENUE ACCOUNTS OF THE COMPANY

Page 318: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

APPENDIX I

Page 319: Iviewit Rebuttal to Kenneth Rubenstein at Proskauer Rose / MPEGLA Bar Complaint

10158 Stonehenge Circle, Boynton Beach, Fla. 33437����T (561) 364-4240����www.iviewit.com

[INSERT WITNESS LIST]